Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 May], That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 8 June.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 8 June.

HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 June.

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 6 June at Seven o'clock.

WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Sheepmeat Regime

Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress on the negotiations on the future of the sheepmeat regime.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): Discussions on the Commission's proposals for changes to the sheepmeat regime have made little progress. I suspect that negotiations are likely to continue for some time.

Mr. Howells: I am sure that many of our sheep farmers would like to know whether the Minister is in favour of the

present grading system, the deficiency payment and the headage payment, or is he in favour of further cuts in support systems.

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly think that we have to tackle the escalating cost of the sheepmeat regime because it has virtually doubled in three years and is now nearly 1.7 million ecus. In terms of the outcome of the regime, I am very much in favour of ensuring a system that will enable our industry to gain full benefits from its excellent structure, efficiency and expertise and from our natural advantages. I suspect that at some stage we will be looking at a different set of proposals, which is why I do not want to be too specific about how exactly we achieve our objectives. I am clear about our objectives and that we want to ensure that our sheepmeat industry has the maximum opportunities in the Community. I have made it clear from the outset that I am opposed to limits on headage payments.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that the farmers of south Dorset are particularly well set up and very efficient producers of mutton and lamb, and that they depend very much on the sheepmeat regime. Can my right hon. Friend reassure them that by a combination f the sheepmeat regime and green pound reform the Government will ensure that it is economic to produce mutton and lamb well into the next century?

Mr. MacGregor: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is very much my objective. Recent decisions that I have secured in the Community have proved that. My hon. Friend will know that the green pound devaluation which we secured in the recent price negotiations was more than double that of our nearest competitors in the Community. That greatly improves the competitive position of our producers and is another indication of how I fight for their interests.

Mr. Home Robertson: What is the Minister's reaction to the fact that the European Commission wants to do away with variable premiums by 1992? The Commission specifically proposes to impose headage limits for hill livestock compensatory allowances. Is that not a serious threat of discrimination against British producers, especially those in the hills and uplands? Will he take this opportunity to give sheep farmers and their employees a clear statement of his and the Government's intentions for the future of the industry?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear that I am determined to fight for their interests in the way that I have always done. I have indicated the extra benefit that we secured in the price negotiations this year. I am as opposed as anyone to the imposition of limits on headage payments, because as well as running against the general objective of the CAP, which is to reward efficient producers and take advantage of natural advantages, it is clearly discriminatory. It also fails to take account of the importance to producers on quite modest incomes of the need to have substantial numbers of sheep in certain parts of the country, especially in Scotland where I have been for the last two days and where I thoroughly discussed these matters with Scottish sheep producers.

Irradiated Food

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether a diagnostic test for irradiated food is yet available.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): Work is continuing to develop tests that could be applied to particular categories of produce. Meanwhile, in those countries where food irradiation is already permitted, control of the process is carried out by licensing and documentary checks as recommended by the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Mr. Morgan: Can the Minister confirm that with or without the availability of a diagnostic test his Government have decided to authorise the legitimation of the sale of irradiated food? Perhaps that is inevitable. If we believe everything we read in Vanity Fair the Prime Minister herself believes that ionising radiation in the bath will extend her shelf life. Is it not the case that dodgy produce that has passed its sell-by date is as unacceptable to the British consumer as are Prime Ministers who have passed their sell-by date?

Mr. Ryder: The World Health Organisation approves of irradiation. More than 20 countries use irradiation, and more than 30 countries, including the United States and France, permit it despite there being no test available to those countries. Under those circumstances, there is no reason why we should not follow suit.

Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend realise that the consumer finds it unacceptable not to be given the choice of choosing food that is irradiated or not? Until a test is available that can inform the consumer whether food is irradiated it should not be sold in this country.

Mr. Ryder: I ask my hon. Friend to be patient. Next month we shall publish a report by some of our officials who are drawing up a framework for irradiation. I will be greatly surprised if labelling does not feature among their main recommendations.

Dr. David Clark: As no diagnostic test currently exists, does the Minister appreciate that not only consumers but farmers, retailers and the Labour party are against irradiated food? The only people in favour are the Government's big business backers. Will the Government back down and respect the will of the British people not to market irradiated food in this country until a diagnostic test is available?

Mr. Ryder: I have seldom heard such nonsense. The advisory committee on irradiation and novel foods, formerly under the chairmanship of the master of Darwin college, Cambridge, and now under the chairmanship of the vice-chancellor of the university of East Anglia, concluded without doubt that irradiation is safe. All the Government's scientific advisers have shown that it is safe, as has the World Health Organisation. More than 30 countries permit it, so why not Britain?

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the proposed introduction of food irradiation in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, the Government accept independent scientific advice that food irradiation, properly applied, is safe, and that moreover it offers consumers real health and economic benefits. I have just received the report from officials on the framework of controls that would be necessary if we were to remove the present prohibition. I will announce a decision as soon as consideration of their report has been completed. A number of organisations and individual bodies have drawn attention to specific matters relevant to the controls, and they too will be taken into account in our consideration.

Mr. Sumberg: I hope that my right hon. Friend will move cautiously. There is widespread public concern that irradiation will merely mask unsafe foods. After all, we have lived happily for generations without it, and can do so in the future. There is a danger that 30 years hence we shall all be back here saying that we should not have taken such a step because there has been damage to life and health.

Mr. MacGregor: The advice of scientists from 54 countries, based on their consideration of the matter over a long period, is that they believe irradiation is safe. It is important of course that food is not unfit for consumption before it is irradiated. Irradiation can do nothing for food that has already deteriorated, any more than can pasteurisation.
Provided that there is a proper framework of controls, irradiation will help to ensure the safety and wholesomeness of food, and it has a contribution to make to the reduction of food-borne illnesses. Irradiation has been shown to be effective in significantly reducing the organisms that cause illnesses such as salmonella and listeria. When I present the working party's report on the framework of controls, I hope that we shall then have an informed debate.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Does the Minister accept that, leaving aside the probable dangers of irradiation in terms of the creation of free radicals which may well create chemicals within food which are dangerous to human health, irradiation is dangerous because it is impossible to detect whether the food was unfit before it was irradiated? The only way of detecting whether food is of sufficient quality at present is by examining the bacterial load on that food. We have no means of detecting the original bacterial load before the bacteria have been killed by irradiation.

Mr. MacGregor: The advisory committee on irradiated and novel foods consists of top-level experts specialising in radiological protection, biochemistry, microbiology, toxicology and nutrition. They have thoroughly examined all aspects of the subject and have come to the clear conclusion that it will not prejudice the safety and wholesomeness of food and that it has certain advantages. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clarke) may be correct in what he said about the Labour party, but I can assure him that he is not correct in what he said about the responses of many consumer organisations, farmers, consumers and others outside the industry.

Mr. Greg Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every winter an advertisement on television shows a young boy who eats a bowl of porridge and then starts to emit a red glow? Is he aware that many members of the public feel


that a similar result may occur when they eat irradiated food? It is absolutely necessary that there is public confidence in this matter. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take whatever steps necessary to bring about that confidence?

Mr. McGregor: Yes, indeed. We ave already received a report from the advisory committee on irradiated and novel foods. There have been many conferences in many countries, and as my hon. Friend said, irradiation is practiced in more than 20 countries and is available in more. It is important to have a proper framework of control in general and to deal with the problem of unfit food. Labelling will also be necessary so that consumers can exercise free choice. I hope that when we publish that report we will have a very thorough debate, which I believe will show that irradiation, properly controlled, can play an important part in food safety.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that a great weakness of the irradiation of food is that it allows unfit food to be dressed up as good food? Is he aware that in this country imported seafood has been found to be unfit for consumption, exported to Holland, irradiated and re-imported to Britain and put on the market?

Mr. MacGregor: Such matters will be an important aspect of the framework of controls that we shall set up. I urge the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the working party report and the Government's conclusions on it.

EC Price-fixing

Mr. Latham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has received on the outcome of the recent price-fixing negotiations in Brussels.

Mr. MacGregor: The price settlement was very satisfactory for the United Kingdom. The green pound devaluations and reductions in the milk co-responsibility levy which I secured have been particularly welcomed in the House and elsewhere.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is entitled to gentle if not ecstatic congratulations on that generally satisfactory outcome? Is it not particularly good that there has been a step towards reducing the milk co-responsibility levy and will he press for further progress in that regard?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the major breakthroughs in this year's price negotiations was that we achieved a reduction in the milk co-responsibility levy across the board, and elimination of it in less-favoured areas. We also secured a commitment that that would be the first stage in further developments towards phasing it out. It is particularly satisfactory that many other Ministers now recognise that the milk co-responsibility levy does not necessarily have a part to play in the CAP reforms. I hope to extend that to cereals. I assure my hon. Friend that I will be pressing for further progress in future price negotiations.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister give us an assurance that the recent changes in interest rates will be taken into acount in future price-fixing negotiations, as they are creating adverse financial conditions for farmers in my constituency? Returning to headage payments, is the

Minister aware that 884 farms in my constituency and in Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale are in receipt of hill livestock compensatory allowances, and the headage payments restrictions would adverseley affect them? We welcome the Minister's support, and hope that he will strengthen his resolve to ensure that those arrangements are not interfered with.

Mr. MacGregor: The next price negotiations—I am almost tempted to say thank goodness because they take so much time—will not begin for another nine months or so. It would not be right for me to comment on what general aspects of agriculture we shall be considering then. The draft proposals for the hill livestock compensatory allowances are only at an early stage of consideration and I am sure that there will be long negotiations on them. I have made clear my position on headage payments limits, but I must point out that one of the difficulties facing us is that a number of other member states are trying to skew the many elements of the common agricultural policy far more towards very small farmers. That is not in the interests of agriculture in the Community as a whole. However, it is one of the factors that they will be taking into account in looking at the limitations, so I shall have quite a battle. I am clear that it would be a mistake to extend the system any further. I voted against the beef regime recently because I disliked the limitation on headage payments there.

Mr. Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House what effect the devaluation of the green pound will have on farmers' incomes?

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to say that the changes in the green pound this year will, of themselves, add about £155 million to farmers' incomes, but will have a negligible effect on the retail prices index.

Mr. Ron Davies: That, of course, will not do anything to offset the 20 per cent. loss in farm incomes from 'which farmers have suffered since 1983. Can the Minister tell us whether, when he was in Brussels, he discussed the pricing of organic produce? Can he tell us especially whether he tried to convert his colleagues in Brussels to the view advanced in Britain by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who said a couple of weeks ago that he regarded the production of organic food as another means by which farmers rip off consumers?

Mr. MacGregor: That is not what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Ron Davies: Yes, it is.

Mr. MacGregor: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, we did not discuss the pricing of organic produce in Brussels and we have not done so before. The increase in organic production has a part to play—although in my own view, it is not a major part—in the development of agriculture and it is important to allow it to develop because I know that some consumers especially want organic food. It is important that organic produce should be defined correctly and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome our recent announcement about an agreement on standards for organic produce, which is an essential first step in the development of organic produce.

Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend won many advantages for British farmers in the Brussels negotiations. Did he have an opportunity to discuss the fruit and vegetable regime, which still suffers from many inefficiencies, costs about £1 billion ecu a year and has been sharply criticised by the Court of Auditors?

Mr. MacGregor: I have noticed that the Court of Auditors has just criticised the operation of the regime and I am trying to get hold of a copy of its report myself because I want to study it urgently. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the price negotiations. We managed to extend the stabilisers to certain further vegetables and there have been, therefore, reductions in price there, which will be helpful in dealing with some of the critical aspects of the regime that my hon. Friend has in mind.

Whales

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in reducing the damage to the world's whale population.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): The moratorium on commercial whaling, agreed by the International Whaling Commission, has been the major step in reducing damage to the world's whale population. It has been in place since 1985 and effectively observed since 1987. The United Kingdom has played a leading role in achieving that and in tackling possible loopholes.

Mr. Banks: May I thank the Minister for his sterling work on behalf of the world's whale population? Does he agree that far more needs to be done, especially in respect of the actions of the Japanese? Does he agree that the Japanese Government seen to be positively venal in the way in which they abuse the world's animal resources, especially whales and elephant ivory? Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to call in the Japanese ambassador and tell him that if the Japanese continue to exploit almost to extinction some of the most wonderful animals on this planet, we will stop buying their wretched cars and hi-fi?

Mr. Thompson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I have a fellow feeling for both whales and elephants. We have taken the lead in sponsoring resolutions against Japanese whaling in the International Whaling Commission. Despite attracting 16 votes in favour and only four against, our latest proposal failed to be adopted by just one single vote. Nevertheless, the result clearly demonstrated the serious concern that exists not only in this House but around the world and Japan should pay firm heed to that.

Mr. Dickens: Is the Minister aware of how deeply the nation feels about the plight of whales and elephants? How much whale and elephant meat—

Mr. Speaker: On whales, please.

Mr. Dickens: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned elephants. What steps are being taken to prevent both those meats being imported for dog food?

Mr. Thompson: I do not have a specific answer to my hon. Friend's question but I shall write to him on that matter.

Lamb Variable Premium

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how long he expects the lamb variable premium to continue.

Mr. Donald Thompson: There are complex negotiations ahead. We must ensure that the future regime, whether through variable premiums or some other means, enables our industry, including that in Northern Ireland to prosper and gain full advantage from the excellent structure, efficiency and expertise that it already has.

Mr. Marshall: In the light of the need to continue to reduce consumption of animal fats, does the Minister accept that any scheme succeeding the present premium should also encourage and favour the production of lean meat?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, in fact we have just reduced the maximum weight payable on fat lambs from 26·5 kg to 21 kg, which does exactly what the hon. Gentleman has requested.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As the Minister mentioned Northern Ireland in his answer, what does he see as being the future of the sheepmeat regime as we move towards 1992?

Mr. Thompson: I see the sheepmeat regime, especially that in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, moving forward with greater exports and greater efficiency. We have already exported 23,572 tonnes of sheep and mutton this year and we hope that that will continue.

Suckler Cow Premium

Mr. Gill: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to persuade the EC to concentrate beef support on the suckler cow.

Mr. MacGregor: In the discussion on the reform of the beef regime we pressed for reduced levels of intervention support and increased direct payments to producers, particularly specialist beef producers. I am pleased to say that the case for concentrating more support on the suckler cow was recognised and we secured the possibility of a major increase in the suckler cow premium which will, following the announcement that I made recently about United Kingdom national financing, be set 42 per cent. higher in 1989–90 at the maximum permissible of £47·43 per cow.

Mr. Gill: When my right hon. Friend discusses these matters with our European partners, will he remind them that in concentrating support for beef on the suckler cow rather than on intervention and on headage payments, with all the difficulties and problems to which they give rise, they would be helping a system that would be much easier to administer, much less prone to fraud and which would target aid to rural areas and specifically to the primary producers? Will he also remind them that that in its turn would help to keep people and families in the


countryside, which would be helpful in producing a high quality product in a natural way and bring tremendous nutritional value to the consumer?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with all those points. We now have a policy that is more market oriented, and that too is in the interests of the consumer. Those were the points that I had in mind when we pressed for the changes that we have now secured.

Mr. Beggs: In future, will small farmers who at present are earning more from part-time employment off their farms, benefit from all the payments that are made available on suckler cows?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I think that is so.

Mr. Boswell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing a 42 per cent. increase in the suckler cow premium, not only from Europe but in negotiations with our own Treasury. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of not rushing into any proposal to amalgamate the suckler cow premium with the remaining value of the headage payment, certainly not for the present, and under no circumstances when there might he a headage limit on the suckler cow premium as well?

Mr. MacGregor: There are no further proposals on this front at present, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister keep particularly in mind that any headage limitation is just as inappropriate in this area as it is for sheep, particularly in parts of the country such as Northumberland, where farms units are large and where the nature of the land and the acreages involved are such that large numbers are necessary?

Mr. MacGregor: The point about large numbers being necessary is one that I have stressed constantly in relation to limits on headage payments. As I indicated earlier on the special beef premium, I eventually voted against the final package because it still contained that element. I am sorry to say that we could not muster a qualifying blocking minority, but I indicated my position by voting as I did.

Licensed Trade (Tenants)

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he proposes to take any action in response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendation on licensed trade tenants' security contained in its report on the supply of beer.

Mr. Ryder: Government decisions on the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are for my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will, of course, be taking account of the views of the National Licensed Victuallers Association.

Mr. Colvin: I should like him also to take into account the views of my hon. Friend, because he bears responsibility for tenant security for licensees; I do not know why. He has been subject to a considerable amount of lobbying over the years by publicans who are concerned about their tenant security. As the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer recommended that publicans now become subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 my hon. Friend will

obviously want to express an opinion to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the House would like to know what that opinion is.

Mr. Ryder: As soon as the report was published, I met the NLVA. Its views have been passed on to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Morley: Is it not fair to say that the Minister should have consideration for the small producers of food? That could apply also to small producers in the brewing industry. The small producers have been squeezed out and crushed for far too long by the juggernauts, the few, large brewers. The report gives small breweries a chance to get their beers into more chains through the guest beer slot and therefore encourages those businesses. Should not the Minister make representations to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to defend those people?

Mr. Ryder: Conscientious to a fault, I also met the small brewers soon after the report was published. It is inconceivable that my noble Friend is unaware of their views.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend not accept that the tenant of a pub, particularly in a rural area, plays a vital role in the community? Is he not concerned that if we erode the position of the tenant, we shall be doing great damage to rural communities? Therefore, will he not prevail upon his right hon. Friend to amend the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report?

Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is tempting me, but I will resist the temptation. I am sure, having spoken to my noble Friend, that he is fully aware of the point of view that has been expressed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend stop being so coy? He has not only a right to an opinion but a duty to have an opinion. Is he aware that on this extremely important issue the totally unreconstructed free market philosophy advocated from the Opposition Benches is not shared by all Conservative Members?

Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is never short of his opinions. He can be certain that I am never short of mine when it comes to talking to my noble Friend.

Beef Premium

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the new beef premium.

Mr. Donald Thompson: The special premium for beef production, which replaced the beef variable premium, was introduced in the United Kingdom with effect from 3 April 1989. The first payments under the scheme were made to producers at the end of April.

Mr. Clarke: What are the Minister's views on headage limits as a means of targeting support to smaller farmers?

Mr. Thompson: I completely dislike headage limits. That is why we voted against the proposal in the Council of Europe.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree with the farming industry's opinion that, because of the decline in the national dairy herd of about 1·5 per cent. to 2 per


cent. a year, we shall need an increase in the suckler cow herd of about 4 per cent. a year to meet the flow of beef required for the United Kingdom market? In the light of that, although the increase in the suckler cow premium to the maximum was welcome, is it possible that it will be insufficient to ensure that growth in the suckler herd? Will my hon. Friend carefully watch developments in the beef industry and ensure that growth is sustained so that United Kingdom producers can continue to supply their own present market shares and not be disadvantaged accordingly?

Mr. Thompson: It is too early yet to see what effect the increase will have on dairy and suckler herds. Nevertheless, I will do exactly as my hon. Friend asked in the latter part of his question.

Mr. Haynes: The Minister is not doing too bad. I liked his answer to the question. Is he aware that we like beautiful British beef on our tables on Sunday? I hope that the Minister will tell Europe where to get off and stop this European rubbish coming to our shores. We should all eat British beef.

Mr. Thompson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The increase in the suckler cow premium will help to produce that British beef.

Festival of Food and Farming

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the public's response to the Hyde park festival of food and farming.

Mr. MacGregor: The festival of food and farming was a great success. Attendance was about 1 million, and visitors clearly enjoyed themselves thoroughly and were impressed. Great credit is due to all concerned in the planning and execution of that most imaginative event.

Mr. Brown: I congratulate my right hon. Friend's Department on its work on the festival. Does my right hon. Friend intend to repeat the festival? In view of his question, I suggest that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) should be invited to open another festival.

Mr. MacGregor: A most distinguished guest opened the festival. As my hon. Friend knows, that guest could not have been more distinguished. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I fully recognise what is behind his question, which is the importance of getting over to the public at large, and particularly the urban population, the great contribution that the farming industry makes to our food and to the attractiveness of our countryside. The festival was a great success in that respect. It was the first major Hyde park festival for nearly 150 years. There are obvious difficulties in repeating it year by year. I have noted my hon. Friend's support for the idea of doing it again.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Is it not the case that British food and farming has been rather soured by salmonella and listeria scares? Does the Minister agree that the British public want cleaner, healthier and pesticide-free food and a system of agriculture with a lower input of fertilisers and pesticides?

Mr. MacGregor: The British public quite rightly want an increasing range of high-quality, safe food. There will always be some problems throughout the world about dealing with safety, because salmonella and listeria are in the air that we breathe. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the past few months we have taken a wide range of measures to deal with the new problem of one particular type of salmonella. The festival showed the very high quality of food that British farmers are producing, and the consumers' response was extremely good.

Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the festival was a marvellous opportunity to celebrate the centenary of his Department and to recall the excellent work that his Department has done and is doing on behalf of the British consumer in its polices, which it is pursuing vigorously, for the reform of the CAP?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, and in particular for underlining the dual role which we have and which is correctly done in one Department—that of pursuing the best agricultural production that we can possibly have and ensuring that the consumer interest is completely taken into account.

Quota-hopping

Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to prevent quota-hopping.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, substantially foreign-owned fishing vessels can no longer be registered as British fishing vessels and have no entitlement to fish against United Kingdom quotas. Following the failure of certain quota-hopping interests to obtain an injunction suspending the operation of the Act, the Government are monitoring the position and will take any action necessary. The Government are also urging the Commission to take action on a Community level to eradicate the practice of quota-hopping.

Mr. Harris: I welcome that reply. Will my hon. Friend pass on to our right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General the congratulations of the House and of our fishermen for the determined way in which he fought the case brought by Spanish interests? He fought it right up to the High Court and won. Will my hon. Friend also take a message of unity from this House to the European Commission to the effect that its apparent insistence in favour of quota-hopping would undermine the common fisheries policy in a way that would be absolutely fatal and to the detriment of our own fishermen in particular?

Mr. Thompson: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations to the Law Officers. I noticed in the judgment that the judges congratulated them on the way in which they presented the case. I shall also reinforce, as we have been doing, our unanimity in the House to stamp out quota-hopping.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister explain what he means by monitoring quota-hopping? When he refers to the Government taking "any action necessary", may I ask him to explain what action will be taken, if necessary, to protect the fishing fleet and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Thompson: The action that we have taken in the courts up to now has been successful and has driven quota-hoppers away from our shores. A licence can now be valid only if the vessel to which it relates is British registered. We intend to press on—in the courts, in the Community and elsewhere—to eradicate quota-hopping.

Council for the Protection of Rural England

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Ryder: I met representatives of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, including the chairman, on 22 March when we discussed several issues of mutual interest.

Mr. Knight: Does the Minister agree that the whole House should recognise the value of hedges as wildlife habitats? Will he confirm that grants are available for the planting and laying of hedgerows under the new farm and conservation grants scheme? What action is being taken to prevent the erosion of the soil in some areas?

Mr. Ryder: I fully share my hon. Friend's views about hedgerows. As he knows, the farm and conservation grants scheme, which began on 20 Feburary, provides grants of up to 40 per cent. for the planting of hedges in lowland areas. I particularly urge farmers in the east midlands and in East Anglia, my own part of England, to make full use of the grants.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did the chairman raise with the Minister the whole question of the reorganisation of his Ministry? Is it true that discussions are going on as a result of which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might be linked to the Department of Industry? Alternatively, is it true that the Government might be considering setting up a whole new green Department based on a combination of briefs from various other Departments?

Mr. Ryder: When I spoke to the chairman of the CPRE, Mr. David Astor, that matter was not on his agenda, but perhaps it may be next time.

Nitrate Pollution

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to reduce levels of nitrate pollution caused by agricultural activities.

Mr. MacGregor: I announced in March the Government's intention to designate a pilot sample of nitrate-sensitive areas, in which a range of agricultural measures could be tested. Since then, a consultation document has been issued setting out the Government's more detailed ideas and inviting comments on them.

Mr. Hughes: When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to announce the set-aside in the nitrate-sensitive areas? Will he agree that the whole scheme that he has initiated is further proof that the Government care about good water quality and that we are in the lead in the European Community in trying to achieve that?

Mr. MacGregor: Set-aside is a different scheme from the proposals for nitrate-sensitive areas on which we

intend to embark. We are getting ahead with our proposals for nitrate-sensitive areas. I hope to have the areas which we are using as pilot samples in place for the harvest in 1990. Of course, we need to have the Water Bill through Parliament, and the National Rivers Authority set up, before we can proceed with our proposals for the nitrate-sensitive areas. The fact that we are getting ahead with our proposals before the decisions in the European Community on this matter must be a clear indication of the Government's leading role in dealing with those matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. McKay: From personal experience, what advice would the Prime Minister give to neighbours who do not get on too well?

The Prime Minister: I am not experienced in such matters.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of a great many hon. Members that the principal member of her Government, the Lord Chancellor, is today being held to account by his Church for fulfillng his public duties? Does she agree that that is hardly the mark of a Church which would call itself Christian or tolerant?

The Prime Minister: I have very great sympathy with my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us this month's excuse for the appalling trade figures?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, part of the reason for the trade figures is the higher investment that I understand he seeks.

Mr. Budgen: is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some confusion on the Conservative Benches about the Government's economic policy? Will she state whether the recent increase in interest rates was to hold up the value of the pound or to restrict private credit and the money supply?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the recent increase in interest rates is to get the rate of inflation down. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find no con fusion on economic policy. The Chancellor and I find none. The only confusion that we find has arisen from the interview given on the BBC today by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when he called for import controls and for us to stop treating the pound as if it were a sacred relic. That is against the Common Market, against GATT, against the pound and against common sense.

Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fraser: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that since the last general election the rate of inflation has doubled, the trade deficit has quadrupled and mortgage rates are going through the roof? If those are signs that the Prime Minister is doing well, what will happen if she does badly?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, to us the rate of inflation is unacceptably high, but to the Labour party it was unsustainably low. It is better than it could sustain for more than a few months. Our performance has given the highest standard of living ever known, the highest number of jobs and a rate of inflation infinitely below the 26 per cent. rate of the Labour party.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: In view of the turmoil in China can my right hon. Friend give some assurances to the people of Hong Kong as, in the present situation, there must be considerable anxiety among them?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's view and I believe that there must be very great concern in Hong Kong about events in China. My hon. Friend will recall the joint declaration we negotiated with China to guarantee that freedoms and the capital, economic policy, which Hong Kong enjoys, should continue for 50 years after 1997. I believe that it is very much in China's long-term interests to make that agreement work and to see Hong Kong remain stable and prosperous. I believe that that will be the case and we shall do everything possible to see that it is.

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livingstone: Has the Prime Minister been briefed on the contents of the book "Who framed Colin Wallace?"? Is she aware that it contains specific details and evidence of acts of treason by the security services and that it contains specific records, on the record, from former members of the armed forces and the Civil Service confirming those acts? What advice would she give to Members of the House who wish to pursue such allegations, when her own Ministers continue to be evasive whenever those issues are raised?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I am not aware of the particular allegations in the book referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I dealt fully with allegations of that kind in my statement to the House on 6 May 1987 and I have nothing further to add to that statement.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to plan a visit to Lisburn and North Down where she would find that a huge number of people who see the path away from sectarian politics as being Conservative party participation in elections there?

The Prime Minister: I have been to Lisburn and I had a very warm welcome from all of the people there and I greatly enjoyed my visit. I shall not be able to get there very quickly, but I understand the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Prime Minister please explain to the House how we can have a record deficit on the import of manufactures and, at the same time, barely reach the 1979 level of investment in the manufacturing industry? Will she explain to the House what has happened to the supply side miracle in the economy?

The Prime Minister: The supply side miracle has given us the highest standard of living the country has ever known, the highest standard of business investment ever known and now, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be very glad to welcome, the highest level of investment in manufacturing industry in real terms.

Mr. Goodlad: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Goodlad: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to congratulate the police in Wolverhampton on their prompt and effective action in apprehending, earlier in the week, those who were dealing in crack? Will she reassure the House that she will give every support to those involved in making sure that that evil trade, which has brought so much misery and degradation to other parts of the world, is never allowed to take root here?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the police were entirely right to take firm action against drug dealers and that crack peddlers must know that they have no safe haven. I believe that the disturbances that followed the enforcement of the law at Heath Town on Tuesday night were absolutely disgraceful. I also believe that the police should be warmly commended on the action they took and on the way in which they restored order, quickly and effectively. I believe that, in doing so, they have the support of the overwhelming majority of the people of our country.

Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Madden: Does the Prime Minister believe that the threatened expulsion of diplomats and journalists threatens the improving good relations between Britain and the Soviet Union, which are most welcome to the overwhelming majority of people of both countries?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that we should refrain from taking action against people who are carrying out unacceptable activities in this country. We found those people in both the Soviet and the Czech embassies and we had to take action against them. The action had to be taken regardless


of the effect upon our relations. The worst thing of all would have been to say that because we have better relations we can ignore all those unacceptable activities.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she has never suspended an interview on "The World at One" because she objected to the line of questioning?

The Prime Minister: I confirm that. I was absolutely appalled at what happened today. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman could never take his place at this Dispatch Box because he would object to the line of questioning.

Mr. Kinnock: Try me.

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Morgan: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the economic problem of this country is no longer that we are suffering from overheating but that the radiator has now blown up into tiny fragments all over her?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker, but I note that official Labour policy would make things infinitely worse by wanting lower interest rates, lower exchange rates, higher public spending and, according to the shadow Chancellor, a less deflationary emphasis, all of which would lead to the sort of inflation we had when Labour was in power.

Mr. Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she has never been a member of CND but has consistently advocated multilateral disarmament? Does my right hon. Friend believe that this consistency is absolutely vital if one is to be taken seriously as a political leader?

The Prime Minister: I confirm that I have never been a member of the CND. I believe in sure and strong defence of liberty. We know from experience that conventional weapons are not enough to prevent war, because of the two world wars that we have had. We must continue to have the nuclear weapon if we are to have peace in Europe.

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: We have been listening with interest in the course of the past two or three months to the Prime Minister's references to the ozone layer and green issues generally. Can she tell us whether she expects that hole in the ozone layer to be patched up by the use of market forces? Has she got in mind a man, a ladder, a bike and an enterprise allowance?

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman—I believe a grammar school boy—would have had the understanding to know that it is the success and profits of the private sector that have been sufficient to finance the excellent research of the Antarctic Survey and to provide even more money for the survey to discover the hole in the ozone layer, which formed the basis of the action which has been taken on it, and that also it is the success of the market sector which is very rapidly producing ozone-friendly products to stop the threat to the ozone layer.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Can I say to my right hon. Friend how much the people of Heath Town will welcome her reassurance this afternoon? I will personally deliver her message to the police tomorrow. Can I have her assurance that she will advise that those who are found guilty of the terrible offence of handling crack be dealt with severely?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Crack is a very great danger and we shall do everything possible to stop it coming into this country. I hope that the courts will take notice of what my hon. Friend has said. I believe that people want that offence dealt with by severe sentences.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister prepared to repeat today the Chancellor's Budget prediction of 5½ per cent. inflation by the end of the year?

The Prime Minister: I am not going any further than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose handling of the economy has given everyone the highest standard of living and the highest standard of social services that they have ever known—[Interruption.] There is so much row from the Opposition because they cannot bear the facts to be told.

Mr. Rhodes James: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Rhodes James: Does my right hon. Friend recall the speech that she made at Perth when she expressed strong support for the threatened Glasgow university veterinary school? Is she aware that we in Cambridge have always strongly supported Glasgow veterinary school, as it has supported us? Can I assume that my right hon. Friend's support for Glasgow extends to Cambridge?

The Prime Minister: I am very supportive of veterinary schools, which have a high standard of excellence. Glasgow, in addition, does a great deal of highly relevant research, and attracts much research from the private sector. I fully support my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in his attempt to save it, which I believe will be successful.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the first week after the spring Adjournment?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the spring Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 6 JUNE—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
Remaining stages of the Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 7 JUNE—Opposition Day (12th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.
Motions on the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) order and the Community Service Orders (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order.
THURSDAY 8 JUNE—There will be a debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 9 JUNE—Private Members' motions.

Mr. Dobson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
Could the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House as soon as possible to deal with poll tax rebates in Scotland, where the 56-day deadline for claiming poll tax rebates runs out tomorrow? Anyone in Scotland who applies for a poll tax rebate after tomorrow will not have it backdated to cover the whole year. Many thousands of Scottish people, who are recognised by the Government to be entitled to poll tax rebates because they are so badly off, have still not had the opportunity to apply. Therefore, it is vital that the Secretary of State comes to the House to extend the deadline. If that requires a change in the regulations, the Opposition will do everything they can to facilitate a speedy change to ensure that the badly off people in Scotland are not robbed of the rebates to which even this Government believes they are entitled.
When may we expect a debate on the Government's response to the Social Services Select Committee's report issued today, which urges the Secretary of State for Health to abandon his headlong rush to change the National Health Service? That all-party Committee is concerned and has serious fears about the stability of services and the continuity of patient care if the Secretary of State achieves his aim.
When can we expect a debate on the Government's response to the Griffiths report on care in the community; and, for that matter, when will the Government publish their response?
When are we to have a debate on the Green Papers on the reform of the legal profession?
When can we expect a debate on the proposal to substitute student loans for student grants? That is a matter of growing concern for many parents of students and would-be students who, in many cases, are the self-same parents who are growing more and more concerned about the rapid increases in mortgage payments, and the likely increases that are to come.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked me five questions about the business for the first week after the spring Adjournment. First, he asked whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would make a statement about the Scottish community charge arrangements. I cannot give such an undertaking, although I will of course refer the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. and learned Friend. I understand, however, that the community charge arrangements are proceeding pretty well in Scotland, in spite of some not very helpful remarks by Opposition Members.
I think that it is a little premature to arrange a debate on the Social Services Committee report, which I believe was published this morning, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. I was interested to note that the Committee took evidence from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health yesterday afternoon, and seems to have compiled its report rather rapidly thereafter.
As I have said, I recognise that there is a good deal of interest in the Griffiths report, and also in the Wagner report. We are working on our own proposals, which we shall introduce in the near future. There will be no undue delay, but it is essential for us to reach the right answers when considering such an important subject. Any further debate will take place when we have announced our proposals.
I cannot promise an early debate on the Green Papers on law reform. The Lord Chancellor will announce the conclusions of his review later, and there will of course be time for debates on any proposals that are presented.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is having discussions with the financial institutions about the administration of the student loan scheme, and they are continuing to make progress. As I have said on many previous occasions, the time for debate will be when conclusions have been reached.

Mr. Julian Amery: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is to make a statement later this afternoon. Can my right hon. Friend give some assurance that before the summer recess we shall have an opportunity for a full debate on the situation in Northern Ireland? We shall have an opportunity this afternoon for some cross-examination, but that does not quite take the place of the assurance that I understood my right hon. Friend to have given me some months ago that we would have a full debate in due course.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I want to add to the assurance that I gave until we have heard my right hon. Friend's statement. I recognise the concern felt by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), and the matter is indeed suitable for debate, but I think it best to hear the statement first and then consider how to proceed.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: When can we have a full debate on sport to enable hon. Members to express their views on participation, sponsorship and the current anxieties about crowd safety and the exploits of ticket touts at sporting events? In view of the recent decision by the Scottish Rugby Union to allow its players to go to South Africa, will the Leader of the House join the


General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which yesterday condemned the decision after being told that for the vice-president of the Scottish Rugby Union to assert that the players are white, free and over 21 was an insult to the players, to the game and to Scotland?

Mr. Wakeham: Sport is clearly a suitable subject for debate in the House, but I cannot promise a debate in the near future. The question of ticket touts was raised in Monday's Adjournment debate. As for matters such as football safety, the Football Spectators Bill will have its Third Reading in the other place in the not too distant future, and there will be arrangements for it to be debated in this House after that.
As for the South African visit, I stand by what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said about the Gleneagles agreement. We have given our views. In a free society people must make up their own minds, but the Government's view is quite clear.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend consider the need for a debate on the White Paper on information technology which, as he will recall, was produced in response to the Trade and Industry Committee's report and which has raised considerable concern in industry? A debate before the summer recess would be most helpful.

Mr. Wakeham: l agree. I wish I could find the time, but I cannot. Of course, the Opposition day debate recently on investing in the future was devoted largely to the subject and my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the IT White Paper. Of course, it is an important subject. 1 should like to find time for a debate, but I am not too hopeful for the immediate future.

Mr. John Morris: Since the Lord Chancellor has invited widespread consultation on his Green Papers before he reaches any conclusions, and since he has extended the time for the judges to give their views, would it not be wrong if the House, which is in charge of Supply for the Executive, did not have an opportunity of presenting its views to the Lord Chancellor before he reaches any conclusions?

Mr. Wakeham: It will, in the end, be for Parliament to decide if there are to be changes. I do not think it is wrong at all. However, I believe that hon. and learned Gentlemen who wish to make representations to the Lord Chancellor have plenty of opportunities to do so. I agree that a debate would be useful, but I cannot find the time at present.

Mr. Ian Paisley: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the majority population in Northern Ireland were not consulted about the Anglo-Irish Agreement when it was drawn up. Now, we have a review of the agreement. Is he telling the House that the representatives from Northern Ireland will not have the same right as any other person in the House to have a full discussion and to express their opinions on that review? For the first time, that review puts members of all the regiments of the British Army into the same position as the Ulster Defence Regiment where they cannot appear in the streets of Belfast or anywhere else in Northern Ireland without being accompanied by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The review also gives to the Dublin

Government the power to nominate to the Mournes in Northern Ireland. Surely the Leader of the House should safeguard minority interests and say that we will have a full debate in the House as well as an opportunity of voting on the matter.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity during the review to give his views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because that would have been an important thing for him to have done.
I have not ruled out the question of debate. Indeed, when the matter was raised earlier, I said that it is a proper subject for debate and I would hope to be able to arrange one. It is a question of finding an appropriate time. The right thing now is to hear the statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and decide how best to proceed.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Having regard to the uncertainty in the financial markets and on the Government Back Benches, would it not be right to have an urgent debate on the state of the economy as soon as we return from the Whitsun recess? Also, does the Leader of the House think that it is time the House was given an opportunity to discuss the Select Committee report on televising the proceedings in the House?

Mr. Wakeham: With regard to the point on televising the House, I hope to be able to make an announcement very soon as to when that debate will take place because it is needed as soon as we can find time for it.
I do not accept the proposition that it is necessary for there to be a debate on the economy at the present time. I believe that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they are not prepared to take any risks with inflation. I recognise that high interest rates are not desirable in themselves, but they are necessary if we are to bear down on inflation. I believe that that is the right policy.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend will have noticed that recently a proposition, drafted largely by British Rail, even if not presented by it, failed to secure approval in their Lordships' House largely because it had been hurried. Given the fact that British Rail is engaged on a proposition which involves noise parameters which have not yet been settled by the Department of the Environment, changing the costs by hundreds of millions of pounds, trying to create a parkway station in the middle of an area of particular landscape importance, and a whole range of other things—including the fact that the Kent county council has just employed a set of consultants—would my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come to have a debate to try to prevent British Rail from bringing a half-baked proposal before the House next November rather than postponing it until it has really worked it through?

Mr. Wakeham: I understand my hon. Friend's concern and interest in the matter, but I do not believe that that allows me to support his proposition. It is not right for me to advise British Rail on its tactics as to how and when to bring a private Bill to the House. I do not believe that it would be wise or helpful for the House to debate the subject. British Rail has to decide what is right, and the House will then have an opportunity of dealing with it.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate on the defective laws affecting people who are knocked down and injured on our roads, in particular people such as my constituent, John Sweetman? He was a pedestrian who was knocked down by a bicycle. He lost an eye and his job and has never gone back to work. He received no compensation because the cyclist was uninsured and a man of straw. May we debate the suffering of ordinary people in cases such as that because they are extremely common?

Mr. Wakeham: That is a serious matter and I regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman had to raise it in the House. I extend my sympathies to the person concerned. It is difficult to find time for a debate on the subject now, although I recognise that if there are shortcomings in the law they should be considered. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would try to initiate an Adjournment debate on the subject.

Sir Bernard Braine: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to early-day motion 827, which refers to a judgment in the Family Division of the High Court at Leeds?
[That this House notes the judgment of Mr. Justice Ward of the Family Division of the High Court, Leeds, on 14th April, that the doctors concerned with Baby 'C', a Ward of Court, should 'treat ( the ward) to die' and that it would not be necessary to feed the child either by intravenous fusions or nasal gastric regimes; notes that both these sections of the formal order were deleted in the Court of Appeal on Thursday 20th April; notes that medical evidence provided by the Official Solicitor was instrumental in guiding Mr. Justice Ward in his conclusions; and calls on the Law Officers to publish in full both the medical report from the Official Solicitor and the judgment of Mr. Justice Ward, deleting those sections which would breach the anonymity of the child, her family, and the doctors involved.]
The decision was that doctors concerned with baby C should treat the baby to die—in other words, medical attention should be withdrawn. The matter went to the appeal court but, because of the nature of the matter it is impossible for the House to ask questions about it; hence the early-day motion. Tragically, the baby died today.
This is a matter of grave public concern and an opportunity should be given to Parliament to debate the issue. I realise that it cannot be debated next week, but will my right hon. Friend, who I know cares deeply about such things, consider the matter, consult the Ministers concerned and arrange for a debate at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my right hon. Friend has raised a serious matter about which he is greatly concerned. I share his concern and I shall certainly accept his suggestion to discuss it with my right hon. Friends to see whether there is anything that can be done. Baby C, who has tragically died, was a ward of court. The proceedings were held in private and, under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, any person who publishes material about the case other than that authorised by the court would be guilty of contempt of court. Therefore, it would be improper for the Law Officers to seek to circumvent that statutory provision. Nevertheless, there are principles and issues involved and it may be possible to have a debate if we can find the right formula.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am not asking the Leader of the House for a statement yet, but may we have some highly publicised Government action on the position of the Kurdish refugees? The Government should urge the Turkish authorities to stop their persecution of the Kurdish people, they should release the Kurdish refugees they have in detention and they should provide financial aid to hard-pressed local authorities, particularly in east London, which are acting humanely in this matter.

Mr. Wakeham: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has an Adjournment debate tomorrow which will provide an opportunity for a Minister to make a considered comment.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging an urgent debate on what appears to be the crass decision of the Department of Transport to postpone the building of the north Birmingham orbital road, despite six years of planning and the payment of millions of pounds in compensation and blight payments? We need to debate the prospect of it being put out to tender or finding a new alternative route, subject to the suggestions of contractors or the people prepared to pay for it. It has vital effects on the economy of the west midlands, from the north to the south. It seems to be a crass decision which was taken without any consultation with the Members of Parliament affected by it.

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot comment on the road concerned or on the details because I do not have the details here. The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the substantial increase in the road building programme was widely welcomed in all parts of the House. I shall certainly refer the matter to the Minister concerned.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Leader of the House does not seem to appreciate the seriousness of the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The Government boasted that the rebate was one of the advantages of the new community charge and tomorrow, Friday, is the last day on which those who are entitled to a rebate can apply, otherwise they will be disallowed this benefit. The Leader of the House must take this matter much more seriously. A campaign in Scotland by the SNP suggested that people should either not pay the tax or should flood the registration officer with requests for rebates whether or not they were entitled to them. People are genuinely in need of knowledge on whether they are entitled to the rebate. We need an extension of the time limit, and we need it now.

Mr. Wakeham: I entirely reject the charge that I have not taken this matter seriously. I told the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that I would refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is about as much as I can do from the Dispatch Box at the moment. The Opposition have responsibilities in this matter. The other day the hon. Gentleman complained about the number of people who had not registered, and the Opposition continually refer to the community charge as the poll tax. No wonder some people are misled.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The trade figures published this morning show a further sharp deterioration in trade with the Common Market as opposed to the rest of the world. For example, exports to other developed countries went up by 8 per cent. and exports to the EEC have gone up by only 1 per cent. As this follows a year in which the deficit was more than £13 billion, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on what is proving to be the national disaster of our appalling and consistently worsening trade with the EEC? As that affects jobs and the Government's economic policies, may we have a full day's debate simply to find out why our trade with the Common Market is such a dreadful disaster? For every £3 of goods that come in, £2 of goods go out, whereas our trade with the rest of the world seems in some respects to be steadily improving. May we have a debate on this big issue?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the balance of trade is a perfectly proper subject for debate, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the immediate future because there is a great deal of other business that I have to get through.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on poll tax registration? That would allow our constituents in England and Wales to be told that it is perfectly lawful for them to return unsigned registration forms and to ask legitimate questions. It would also allow Ministers to explain why overseas students are liable for poll tax while American service personnel are exempt. It would draw attention to the discretion of poll tax officers, because in Bradford the poll tax officer is proposing to exempt persons from poll tax if they are outside the United Kingdom for more than a year. However, they lose entitlement to social security if they are outside the United Kingdom for more than eight weeks.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman does not carry much conviction when he tries to raise questions concerning his constituents and continually refers to the community charge as the poll tax.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that dog lovers, owners and breeders all over the country are banding together and writing to hon. Members hoping that we will have a debate on the question of dog registration and its many benefits? What are the prospects for those people of such a debate being held?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern, and I have had many letters on the subject. The Government do not believe that implementing section 37 would assist in the matter. I regret to say that I cannot see the opportunity for a debate on the subject in the near future.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: When will there be the promised debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on toxic waste and on the Government's inadequate response to it? Has not the need for such a debate been strengthened by the report of a Committee of another place underlining many of the concerns that the Environment Select Committee expressed?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, and I cannot promise him a debate in the immediate future.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: When does my right hon. Friend expect to announce his long-awaited reforms of the unsatisfactory methods by which the House scrutinises EEC legislation? Is he aware that in the early hours of this morning the House reached an all-lime low in the saga of inadequate scrutiny when right hon. and hon. Members were invited to give their views on an EEC document on a "take note" motion, only to find that the motion had been pre-empted by a Government announcement earlier in the day to the effect that they accepted everything for which the EEC document asked? My right hon. Friend must surely see the ludicrous absurdity of the House being asked to spend its precious time offering its views on an EEC document when nothing said in the debate could possibly influence either the EEC or the Government.

Mr. Wakeham: There are two parts to my hon. Friend's question—a general part and a specific part. I was present last night, and I heard the points of order.
In EEC scrutiny debates, it is far from unusual for the Government's views to be known in advance In the particular case in question, we feel that we are now able to support the Commission's proposal and decided that that view should be publicly known in advance of the debate. To have done otherwise would have been to mislead the House.
However, I recognise that there is concern about the way in which EC documents are scrutinised by the House. It is not satisfactory, but it is not for me to announce the way in which matters will be improved. The Select Committee on Procedure is considering the matter and I am having discussions with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. I shall also want to have discussions with the Opposition. We must reach a general consensus as to the best way forward. I share my hon. Friend's view that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House read the 15 or so early-day motions that I have tabled calling on Mr. Tiny Rowland to divest himself of his interests in The Observer? Is it not clear that Mr. Rowland is abusing his position by using journalists and that newspaper's editor to secure his commercial ends?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Where is the evidence?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not absolutely clear that the independent directors of The Observer are failing in the duties that were placed upon them when Mr. Rowland was allowed to take over the newspaper?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Where is the evidence?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not time that those directors either resigned or did their job properly? May the House have a debate so that those matters can be properly discussed in Parliament?

Mr. Wakeham: I have taken a cursory glance at some of the hon. Gentleman's early-day motions but cannot say that I have read them in great detail. However, I can make a general comment. The tradition of press freedom in this country means that newspaper editors are free to publish what they wish, provided that they observe the criminal and the civil law. Where there is doubt about the accuracy or fairness of their reporting, complaints should be made to the Press Council, which is responsible for investigating such matters.

Mr. Michael Latham: In a week in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary had very constructive discussions with the Prime Minister of Israel, and in view of the fact that Ministers have met the Palestine Liberation Organisation leader, Yasser Arafat, is it not high time that the House had a proper debate on the problems of the middle east and the Arab-Israel conflict?

Mr. Wakeham: A number of very important foreign affairs subjects, of which that to which my hon. Friend refers is one, should be the subject of debates, but, as I have said at this Dispatch Box in recent weeks, we have a particularly heavy programme and at this time of the year it is difficult to find time for debates. Nevertheless, I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and will do my very best.

Mr. David Winnick: When the House returns from the recess, will there be a statement on the law relating to defamation, bearing in mind the libel damages of £600,000 that were awarded yesterday? Is not that a matter of some importance? Although we want people to utilise the law fully if they are libelled, should we not also bear in mind that two of the women attacked by Sutcliffe but who fortunately survived have yet to be paid a penny of the compensation of £10,000 and £8,000 that they were awarded? Is it likely that Mrs. Sutcliffe, although she was in no way responsible for her husband's crimes, will pay out to those two women and to the relatives of the women who were murdered?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be quite inappropriate to comment on any particular case, but I am aware that there has been criticism recently of a number of aspects of the law of defamation, including the size of some libel awards. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is to consider proposals for reform, taking all issues into account. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Home Office has already announced that an inquiry is to be established into privacy and related matters, and that could affect this consideration.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) as hon. Members on both sides of the House are receiving vast numbers of letters from constituents about dog registration? I should like us to debate the matter for a different reason from that given by my hon. Friend—to highlight the disgraceful advertising campaign by the RSPCA in which it accuses the Government of causing a larger number of dogs to be destroyed by removing the dog licence. Its annual report this year says that the number of dogs which have had to be destroyed has reduced since the dog licence was abolished. That needs to be highlighted.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point very clearly. As I said, I cannot find time for a debate on this subject in Government time, but perhaps my hon. Friend will consider applying to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Leader of the House aware of the collapse of the electoral register by more than 4 per cent. in 17 constituencies,

including that of Finchley? Should not the House have a discussion about the serious state of the electoral register? It is a matter of great democratic and constitutional concern, and not to have such a debate would be to intimate that the House did not care one iota about the democratic procedures of the country.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. I realise that he has raised a perfectly proper matter for discussion. I cannot find time for it immediately, but as his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench have not chosen a subject for debate in the first week back after the spring Adjournment perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask them whether they might like to discuss this subject.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious environmental pollution problem in the city of Southampton? The ship Moby Dick, crewed by Greenpeace, has been blockading what is known as the "sludge ship" which takes the sewerage of Southampton out into mid-channel and dumps it. In 1989 we should not be dumping all the sewerage from a city the size of Southampton into the channel. The licences issued by MAFF should be brought before the House and scrutinised to find out just how much pollution of the sea is taking place. Would not a debate clear up some of those points?

Mr. Wakeham: A debate might clear up some of those points. I hope to be sailing my boat somewhere in that area during the spring Adjournment next week, if the weather stays fine, and I might have more knowledge when I return.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House look into a problem that has arisen concerning lobbyists coming to the House? I understand that the Grand Committee Room has been used by an inquiry for some months, so no public lobbyists will be able to use it to meet Members of Parliament. I understand that other rooms cannot be made available for lobbyists to meet Members of Parliament. On 22 June a very large pensioners' lobby will be coming here.
Will the Leader of the House look into the problem and propose lifting the rule for other Committee Rooms so that lobbyists can meet Members of Parliament, or will he make arrangements for Westminster Hall to be made available so that the pensioners can meet Members of Parliament to put their perfectly legitimate claims for a decent old-age pension for all?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any undertaking that something can be done because there are difficulties, but I can certainly give him the clear undertaking that I shall look into the matter to find out what can be done and will write to him.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will allow the House to have an urgent debate on the cultural vandalism of the BBC in its proposal to tamper with the ball-by-ball commentary on Test Match Special? Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that cricket, cathedrals, "Land of Hope and Glory", an enduring distrust of foreigners and the continuing premiership of my right hon. Friend the Prime


Minister define classically the best of England, and it would be a disaster and a catastrophe of the first order if any of these were damaged or destroyed in any way?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not have a Test score later than lunchtime, but I believe that it was 132 for three at lunchtime today. I am interested to know what has happened since then. If it is not irresponsible of me, I share the sentiments of my hon. Friend, but it is for the BBC to decide what sporting events to cover and the extent of that coverage. I understand that the BBC aims to continue providing as much uninterrupted ball-by-ball coverage as possible. For the majority of the time, the BBC sees no reason why Test Match Special should differ from its persent form.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I remind the Leader of the House that, although we have had Adjournment debates on the Roman baths at Huggin hill and the Rose theatre, there remains in the House considerable concern that a great deal of damage is being done to Britain's archaeological heritage by the activities of property developers and that we will not safeguard our heritage by one-off campaigns that occur on sites within easy reach of Fleet street and Westminster? May we have an urgent and early debate on the preservation of our archaeological heritage and the clear loopholes in present legislation?

Mr. Wakeham: I thought that the Government and the developers moved speedily and effectively to deal with recent cases. By their very nature, one cannot always anticipate when such matters will arise, but I agree that the subject is suitable for debate. It is difficult for me to make time for a debate in the immediate future, but I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Gary Waller: It would obviously be improper for my right hon. Friend to comment on any one case of libel, even one as significant as the Sutcliffe case about which so many members of the public are concerned, but is he aware that it is now 14 years since the Faulks committee on defamation reported, yet none of its recommendations has been implemented by any Government, although several of them are relevant to recent cases? Does he agree that it might be appropriate for the House to have a debate on that matter so that the views of right hon. and hon. Members could be taken into account by the committee reviewing the press, privacy and similar matters that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced?

Mr. Wakeham: It is clear from the way in which he phrased his question that my hon. Friend is aware that he has raised a difficult subject on which it is not easy to find a solution. The right approach is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to consider these matters in the way that he has suggested, but if any right hon. or hon. Member has any suggestions I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be only too pleased to receive them.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Leader of the House agree that the time is now right for the House to debate the appointment of regulators? The matter has been highlighted this week by the appointment of Professor Littlechild as regulator-designate of the electricity industry, the appointment last month of Ian Byatt as regulator-designate of the water industry, and just before Christmas the appointment of Adam Peat as the new director, with regulatory functions, of the Housing Corporation for Wales.
It is notable that those three appointments are of civil servants, temporary or permanent, who were deeply involved in writing the legislation. That raises two important constitutional issues which need to be thought about seriously by the Leader of the House and by the House as a whole. Those appointments mean one of two things: either only those who are engaged in writing the legislation understand its functions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Business questions should be about future debates.

Mr. Morgan: The other point that we should debate is whether the Government approve of the idea of civil servants writing £40,000 or £50,000 a year jobs for themselves.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman seems to misunderstand the whole process. Parliament is considering the legislation that requires the regulators to be appointed. The gentlemen that the hon. Gentleman mentioned seem eminently suitable for the jobs. I see no cause for a debate.

Mr. Greg Knight: May we have an early debate on the subjects of disarmament and defence so that hon. Members of the soft Left wing, the hard Left wing and the provisional wing of the Labour party can place their views on record and the House can discover what Labour's defence policy really is?

Mr. Wakeham: The debate on Thursday 8 June might be an opportunity to start on that litany of subjects.

Anglo-Irish Conference (Review)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the review of the working of the Intergovernmental conference set up under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The review was completed at the meeting of the conference in Belfast yesterday and copies of the report have been placed in the Library. Also in the Library are copies of a paper setting out developments since the signing of the agreement. The review has been a very worthwhile opportunity to take stock of the working of the conference and I am grateful to all those who submitted views on this subject.
Both Governments reaffirmed in the report their full commitment to all the provisions of the agreement and to its shared understandings and purposes. The report deals with the work and achievements of the conference under each article of the agreement. In the conclusions of the report, the two Governments agree that the conference, supported by the secretariat, has proved its value in the past three years and that, while requiring no fundamental change at present, its role could, nevertheless, be developed and enhanced in a number of ways.
If in future it were to appear that the objectives of the agreement could be more effectively served by changes in the scope and nature of the working of the conference, consistent with the basic provisions and spirit of the agreement, the two Governments would be ready in principle to consider such changes.
What the report and the record of developments since the agreement was signed show is that neither the agreement nor the operation of the conference is a threat to either tradition in Northern Ireland. On the contrary, they have provided a framework that respects the essential interests of both sides of the community and their right to pursue their aspirations by peaceful means. They facilitate co-operation in the fight against terrorism and set out to create the conditions in which the whole community can live together in peace.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement this afternoon. My party gives a warm welcome to the declaration made yesterday. We had only one regret about the declaration and that was the absence of the Tánaiste, the Foreign Secretary of the Republic. I am sure that the whole House hopes that he has a speedy and successful recovery from his recent operation.
In many ways, the declaration has mirrored the opinions of the Labour party and the submission we made to the Government on it. However, the greatest achievement of the agreement has been its survival, despite all the pressures and controversy to which it has been subjected. As the review document clearly points out, the agreement has assisted the development of cross-border security, which is very important, and has resulted in a far more mature and constructive relationship between the British and Irish Governments. It has provided the forum for the institutionalisation of disagreements and has furnished a mechanism for the handling of disputes.
When we look at the detail of the review, we are pleased that the two Governments have accepted so many of our suggestions. I welcome the recognition of the need for

greater openness about the working of the agreement, as well as the decision to hold regular meetings of the conference. The crisis management atmosphere has been detrimental to the agreement.
In terms of the legal aspects of the review, we welcome the fact that the review recognises the need to bring the Law Officers into the agreement process. We can do without the disputes between the Law Officers which have in the past marred Anglo-Irish relations. Furthermore, we note that efforts are to be made to make use of the extra-territorial legislation and, in addition, that the proposals for the harmonisation of the criminal law between the two countries are to be furthered.
There are two other areas of policy that we described in our submission as relevant and important. We .are glad that the two Governments have accepted our recommendation that more effort should be made to use the agreement to deal with cross-border co-operation in social and economic matters. We are especially impressed that the implications of 1992 for the relationship between the two parts of Ireland appear to have been recognised by the two Governments. We are certain that there can be future progress in that area.
I also welcome the publication of the document "Developments since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement", although some sections of that document tend to over-egg the pudding and others are somewhat contentious. However, it is good that the Government have attempted to provide information that will assist in drawing up a realistic assessment of the agreement.
The Labour party supports the conclusions of the review and, in particular, paragraphs 27 to 30. Paragraph 29 states:
If in the future it were to appear that the objectives of the Agreement could be more effectively served by changes in the scope and nature of the working of the Conference, consistent with the basic provisions and spirit of the Agreement, the two Governments would be ready in principle to consider such changes.
That shows a degree of flexibility which we wholeheartedly endorse.
Will the Secretary of State agree with us that the prime objective in the next phase of the agreement is to bring all the constitutional parties in from the cold, not betraying their principles, their traditions or their communities, but working for the good of the Province as a whole?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for the welcome he gave the statement and especially for the welcome he gave to the paper we produced on developments since the signing of the agreement. It is helpful to remind the House and the wider public of a number of events which have taken place since the agreement was signed and which show, not spectacular developments in particular directions, but the steady and valuable progress made in developing a closer understanding and relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on the issues in Northern Ireland. Anybody who considers these matters sensibly—and this is one matter on which I am sure that I command the support of the whole House—knows that there has to be a relationship between Dublin, Belfast and London. There are issues of manifest benefit that can be better resolved by discussion together. The lesson of the review is that the work of the conference started perhaps with a bit of crisis management, but is now steadying down to worthwhile,


sensible progress in a number of important areas and that can only be of benefit to relations within Northern Ireland and to people within the whole island of Ireland.
At the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North invited me to bring people in from the cold. My door is open so that people can come in from the cold. If people are determined to stay out in the cold, I will not arrest them and compel them to come through the door. In the end, they have to decide whether they want to do that. I say as genuinely as I can from the Dispatch Box that if people wish to come, the welcome is there.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The majority population of Northern Ireland were not consulted when the Anglo-Irish Agreement came forth and when it was signed. They had no opportunity at that time to say anything about its conditions because they were kept secret. However, the minority population, led by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), had full access to all that was going on, which was acknowledged by the Secretary of State at that time, who is now the Home Secretary. The Unionists were left out in the cold.
Then we had the agreement. When it was signed the hon. Member for Foyle told the Government to face down the Unionist population. At the time, the Unionists were told that they would not be consulted and to carry on as they had been doing. There was then an inquiry into the agreement. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who was then Labour's deputy spokesman on Northern Ireland and who is in the House now, attended that session and admitted that in his opinion the status of Northern Ireland had been changed through the Anglo-Irish Agreement. When we look at the review—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Although I appreciate the importance of this statement to the hon. Gentleman, will he please bear in mind that he should ask the Secretary of State a question?

Rev. Ian Paisley: When we are having a statement in the House, Mr. Speaker, I must put the background to my question—[Interruption.] If I do not have the freedom to do that—[Interruption.] In your hearing, Mr. Speaker, I have already pressed that this House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) would do better to listen.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like a full-scale debate in the House on this matter. However, that has not been forthcoming from the Leader of the House or from the Secretary of State who could have said in his statement today, "We will give a full debate" because the only place that the view of the majority of Northern Ireland's representatives can be heard is in this House.
It is completely wrong of the Secretary of State to say that the views of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself were not put to him forthrightly because he knows the Unionist view over a period of nine months. He knows exactly where we stand on this issue. Surely this House should have an opportunity of having a full debate on this issue.
The Secretary of State is saying that the agreement hurts nobody, that it is even-handed and that it will bring about peace, stability and reconciliation. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), speaking for the Labour party, said that cross-border security has been improved. I wonder

whether they would like to visit the homes of two senior police officers and ask their widows whether they think that it has been improved.
The House needs to face the fact that the Ulster question will not go away and that the way in which we should debate it is in an open debate in the House, not with a mere statement. There are things in the statement that radically change some of those democratic rights that are left. Matters such as appointments to boards will be tinkered with. If the Secretary of State is going to be forthcoming to the majority, let him say today, "Yes, we will have a debate on this issue in the House."

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman began his intervention, or question, with a travesty of the truth. He knows perfectly well that the first thing that I did when I went in to my office at Stormont as the new Secretary of State was to sit down and, in my own hand, write him a letter before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was even signed inviting him to talk to me on behalf of his party and the people that he represents. I issued the same invitation to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux)—but the hon. Gentleman never came. He is now saying that people were not consulted, but he bears a heavy responsibility for the fact that the people whom he represents did not have a chance for their voices to be heard. We also know that the hon. Gentleman did exactly the same thing when we reached the review period. It is not good enough for him to stand up in the House asking why people were not consulted when he represents one of the two parties that refused to give any views on this review of the agreement.
Having put that on the record, I genuinely want to see the ways in which progress can be made. If I may say so, it is more likely to be made by the sort of approach that the hon. Gentleman has now adopted than by him sending me the sort of letter that he sent yesterday, which is published in the Newsletter today. If he is interested, and if it was with his agreement, I would ask for permission to publish it in the Official Report so that the House could see what is not the right approach, what is the negative approach, of abuse and vituperation in Northern Ireland politics when what I looked for from him—I take encouragement from his remarks—is a constructive and sensible discussion on important matters.
The matters concerning the administration and government of the Province can be debated in the House, although that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I made it clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that my door is open. If the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is genuine in what he has just said, I am happy to sit down with him to talk about arrangements for administration and government within Northern Ireland which, as he knows, he can do outside the agreement. However, if he sits in his trench and bellows "Not an inch" and "No surrender", what happened to him in the local government elections will continue to happen, because more sensible voices will prevail.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has referred to a document which I should like to be printed in full. I should like the House to read it and to see that it is not the document that the Secretary of State has painted to the House. By all means, print the document.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would not be appropriate to have the document printed in the Official Report. Perhaps the best course would be to have it placed in the Library.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I congratulate the Secretary of State on reaching agreement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland which, in his own words, shows the full commitment of both Governments to the genuine implementation and use of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and Secretariat for the benefit of all the people of Ireland, North and South, and for the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland, be they Protestant, Catholic, Unionist or Nationalist. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree—indeed, he has stated this—that nothing in the agreement is detrimental to the rights and the duties of any citizen in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland.
I welcome the Secretary of State's statement on behalf of both Governments that there is an attempt to expand the scope and the timetabling of the deliberations. While it is important that security is always the number one issue on the agenda, because of the unfortunate and damaging terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, nonetheless, the Anglo-Irish Agreement deliberations have been reactive rather than proactive. I hope that in the ensuing meetings of the Secretariat there will be a structured agenda and a structured timetable when dealing with, say, the economic issues that would be beneficial to both communities, in both Northern and southern Ireland. I welcome the intent that appeared to exist in the Secretary of State's statement that that would be the norm in the future.
As we head towards 1992, it is only appropriate that two neighbouring Governments evolve a harmonisation and compatibility such as is envisaged for all Europe. Why can it not be envisaged for the small nation of the island of Ireland?
In response to the Secretary of State's remarks to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I reaffirm and agree with the Secretary of State when he says that opportunities were available to every party and to people of no party in Northern Ireland to make representations on this matter. The hon. Member for Antrim, North stated that my party leader and, presumably, myself had had some privileged access prior to the signing of the agreement. We consulted with the British Government and with the Irish Government. We put our views on both tables. We would have been fools not to, prior to any international agreement being signed. That opportunity was available to everybody on the island of Ireland, and in the British Isles.
When the hon. Member for Antrim, North speaks of the majority in Northern Ireland, he is really speaking for a very small minority of the people of the United Kingdom and a very small minority of the people of Ireland in relation to his campaign of opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
While there have been hiccups in the relationship between the two Governments over the past three years, the 27 meetings of the Secretariat must be recognised as having done away with the previous negative diplomacy and shouting across the Irish sea. The meetings have had a positive result. The opposition of the Unionist fraternity to the agreement got its answer in the local government poll last week. To say that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is an obstacle to political and economic movement in Northern Ireland is nonsense. The very parties that created the

obstacle cannot get over the hurdle, so it is a self-imposed obstacle. I encourage the Secretary of State to expand the work of the agreement in such a way that not only the security but the economic and social welfare of all the people of Ireland may be enhanced and improved.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for his constituents and obviously is keenly concerned about the interests of the Nationalist community. Some people believe that addressing the concerns, and perhaps the grievances and disaffections, of the minority community is somehow to the disadvantage of the majority community. It is abundantly to the advantage of the majority community within the Province that there should be good relations between both communities. It is tragic that some political leaders in the Province fail to recognise that.
We have sought through discussion to establish a constructive relationship with the Irish Government. From the position in which I sit, I can see the benefits which can flow from that. There are manifold economic benefits, not least with the approach of 1992. I appreciate the constructive relationship that we have with the Irish Government, which owes much to the outstanding leadership of the Tánaiste, Mr. Brian Lenihan. I know that the whole House will share the hope, expressed in the communiqué, that his recent operation in the United States will be a success and that he will be restored to good health.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I have allowed discretion to the two hon. Members from Northern Ireland constituencies for reasons that I hope the House fully understands. We should now get back to asking questions of the Secretary of State on the statement that he has just made.

Mr. Ian Gow: How carefully did my right hon. Friend consider the alternative to the present agreement that was sent to him on 28 September last year on behalf of some of my hon. Friends and myself? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greatest single factor in prolonging the tragedy of Northern Ireland is uncertainty about the constitutional future of the Province and that that uncertainty has been increased, rather than diminished, by the Anglo-Irish Agreement in its present form? How is it that my right hon. Friend is in favour of legislative devolution for Northern Ireland but is opposed to legislative devolution for Scotland on the ground that in Scotland it would injure the Union?

Mr. King: I think that my hon. Friend knows well that this was not a review of the agreement but a review of the workings of the conference. The agreement has been signed and is in place. That is not in dispute.
I regret profoundly my hon. Friend's comment about spreading doubt and uncertainty about the Union. He knows my position on that. He knows of my support for article 1, which has been signed and is supported by the Irish Government. It states that there should be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the agreement of the majority. That is an absolutely clear and firm understanding, expressed and signed by two sovereign Governments, the United Kingdom Government and the Irish Government. It has been lodged with the United


Nations as an international treaty. There is no uncertainty about that. I hope that we all stand firmly in support of that.
On the latter point that my hon. Friend made, I do not want to rehearse the history of Northern Ireland, but my hon. Friend knows that there is a difference between the background of Northern Ireland and Scotland in that Northern Ireland had the Stormont Parliament while Scotland did not have a parliament. We need to think seriously about the most appropriate way to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have a greater say in and greater responsibility for the administration of their own affairs. I have made it clear that I am open to discussions on the most appropriate forum for that. If we are to make progress, we need to get discussions going with the people who might have responsibility for the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I associate myself with the expressions of goodwill towards the early recovery of Mr. Lenihan. I also take the opportunity to say to the right hon. Gentleman how much we on these Benches have admired the courage, determination and painstaking care with which he has assured the survival of the agreement. Those who seek peace in Northern Ireland are greatly in his debt and the debt of those in the South who have worked with him. His statement and the common statement that he made with representatives of the Government of the Republic have identified, rightly, that nothing in the agreement presents a threat to either tradition in Northern Ireland. That is seen by the Government as important, not in terms of the last dot and comma of the agreement but of its basic principles and spirit. The Government clearly see the agreement as not the last but the first step in the process.
In the light of those facts, does the Secretary of State agree that those who seek peace and the best interests of Ireland on both sides of the border would be better advised to develop and build on the agreement rather than seek to destroy it?

Mr. King: I appreciate very much the right hon. Gentleman's opening words and his general comments. I agree profoundly with his last remark about the agreement not being a threat to either tradition. The only threat to those traditions in recent years has come from some of the methods of opposition and some of the behaviour that has appalled many people in Great Britain and many hon. Members whose belief in the Union is that people should play their part in the Parliament of the Union. Those hon. Members were concerned about the unwillingness of some people to continue on constitutional routes. I hope that people will recognise that the agreement is not a threat and that it can bring benefits. They should look at the positive side. We owe that to the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that real benefits can flow from that recognition.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: My right hon. Friend is only too well aware of the grave difficulties in British-Irish relationships. Potentially horrendous difficulties must reach his desk every day, involving cross-border security, Libyan arms, extradition, Gibraltar and all the rest of it; I do not need to list them all. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in his difficult job, which, if I may say so, he does so well, the existence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been of great assistance to him?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the least valid comments that is made about the agreement is that security has got worse as a result of the agreement. People who perpetuate that falsehood fail to recognise that some time ago, probably about 1983, plans were laid and preparations were made for the shipment of substantial quantities of Libyan arms, equipment and explosives, which were starting to arrive in Ireland before the agreement was signed. We are facing a determined and vicious campaign which, to put it bluntly, was intended to be the campaign to end all campaigns and to force victory for the IRA. That campaign is being resisted by the courage and determination of the security forces and by the resolution of all the people of Northern Ireland who are standing bravely against it. We are aided by the close support and co-operation of the Irish Government, the Garda Siochana and the Irish army. I should not like to face that serious campaign without the co-operation that has resulted in a series of arms finds and in the close working relationship that now exists. That is the reality of the security matter, and that is the reality of one of the benefits that have flowed from the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is there a danger that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is becoming an aim in itself? Its initial worthwhile provisions to end terrorism and extend democracy, especially in the Province, are not being pursued with sufficient vigour. Although there are great problems in controlling terrorism, democracy could be acted upon more quickly. A democratic devolved Government with a Bill of Rights to protect civil liberties should be the result of the agreement or of alternative discussions if the Anglo-Irish Agreement cannot deliver.

Mr. King: I hope to see a more constructive approach in political matters. There are some signs that, after the local government elections that have just taken place, that is increasingly the view of more and more people in Northern Ireland. Although they certainly wish to protect and defend their own respectable traditions and values, they look for dialogue and a constructive way forward, and not the hostility, hatred and distrust that some people still try to engender.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State inform the House whether, during the review of the workings of the conference on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, he considered the heady days of late 1985, when claims were made in the House that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would produce peace, stability and reconciliation? In his analysis of the Anglo-Irish Agreement over the three-year period, did he conclude that the increase in violence, political and economic instability, and the divisions within Northern Ireland demonstrate that the policy has not been a success? Will he admit that all the talk of the IRA's plans being set in 1983 was known to him when he claimed that things would get better under the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
Will the Secretary of State please acknowledge that all hon. Members want Northern Ireland to move towards peace, stability and conciliation? Some of us at least believe that this is not the means to do it and that there is a better way. Will the Secretary of State please inform the House that he is not closing his mind to alternative means of bringing peace and stability to Northern Ireland and that there can be other proposals to get peace, stability and reconciliation? Does he recognise that the vast majority of


people in Northern Ireland still reject the Anglo-Irish Agreement and still refuse to accept it as the basis of good government for the Province?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's last sentence yet again confirms his total misunderstanding of the basis of the agreement. It is not a basis of government in Northern Ireland. The responsibility of government in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the office that I have the honour to hold. In discharging that responsibility, I am aided by several contributions. I would have hoped to have more contributions from some of the elected politicians and representatives from the Province. I am aided also by the Anglo-Irish Agreement Conference, in which the Irish Government put forward to me views and proposals on certain matters. We co-operate on some economic and social activities and security matters as well. The hon. Gentleman's last sentence is precisely the misunderstanding that some have sought to perpetuate—it totally misleads the people that listen to it—as the true nature of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The hon. Gentleman talked about economic instability. I am proud of the improvements in the Northern Ireland economy that we have seen over the past three years. They have been largely as a result of the improvement in the United Kingdom economy. There has been a substantial fall in unemployment and a significant increase in industrial investment. I welcome that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does, too. Our approach is to seek a better future for the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will have listened to my statement and heard me say that if, in future, it appears that the objectives of the agreement can be more effectively served by changes in scope and nature, the two Governments will be ready in principle to consider such things. I hope and believe that the hon. Gentleman understands the significance of that statement. In the light of my opening comment and my last comment, putting the nature of the agreement into its true context and making it quite clear that the actual government of Northern Ireland is a separate matter, I hope that he will feel able constructively to discuss any ideas that he might wish to put forward.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not the case that, whatever they may have said when in opposition, successive Governments in the Irish Republic have supported the agreement? Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his task has been made much easier by the support that he has received from both sides of the House since the agreement was signed? One hopes that, if a Labour Government were responsible for the agreement, we would have got the same support from what would have been the Tory Opposition.
Does the Secretary of State agree that far more substantial improvements in housing and employment would do much to undermine terrorism? That is probably why the Provisional IRA is so opposed to the economic progress that we would like to see in Northern Ireland.

Mr. King: It is certainly true that the Provisionals are opposed to much of the economic improvement. It is true also that they are the bitterest opponents of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the developing co-operation

between our two countries. There is no question about that. We know why they are so frightened. I have had support from both sides of the House of Commons for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which has been in place for about three and a half years. Anybody who knows what has happened in housing and the economy in trying to encourage more jobs in Northern Ireland knows that sensible co-operation in tackling other social problems will also help to improve the situation in the Province.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will call those hon. Members who have been standing, but, in view of the business before the House today, I ask them to keep their questions brief.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there have been many positive achievements by the conference? I refer to article 10 of the agreement and the success of the international fund for Ireland, thanks to the generosity and understanding of the United States, New Zealand, Canada and the European Community. Does he agree that economic co-operation leads to economic confidence, which leads to economic prosperity, which benefits all people north and south of the border, and brings peace with it?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the international fund. Although we very much appreciate the contributions of Canada, New Zealand and the European Community, obviously the major contribution has come from the United States. It is a remarkably fine gesture as a result of the close relationship between the United States and the island of Ireland. That gesture of good will and support is being used in increasingly constructive ways to help in many matters within Northern Ireland, the border counties and the Republic.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most notable achievements of the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been the greater emphasis on fair employment and education? Both matters deal with people. The reduction of tension between people of different traditions has played a notable part in ensuring not only that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be successful but that there will be a much greater chance of peace in the community of Northern Ireland.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that matter. In particular, successive Governments have been determined to tackle discrimination, whether in housing or in jobs—topical as the subject is, as the House is about to complete the last stages of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill. That development, allied with what I hope will be a continuing improvement in the number of jobs available, gives us the best chance now not only of more jobs but of equality of opportunity in the availability of those jobs.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recall that I was one of those who voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement? I now feel, having studied the document "Developments since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement" regarding the working of the conference, that it must be acknowledged that there have been considerable beneficial developments from the Intergovernmental Conference.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement need not be any reason why politicians should not accept the invitation which he has proffered, today and on previous occasions, to come before him with constructive alternative proposals?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments and for the time he has taken to study the report on developments, which I have made available to the House. I can certainly confirm what he says. If people wish to talk, that does not imply acceptance or approval of the agreement and it does not need to be within the agreement. Nothing could be fairer than that. I have invited people to come and talk without preconditions. It is no good for people to jump up and down and shout about people not being consulted when that offer is available.
I am not here to belabour the point, but I would rather see genuine, sensible discussions taking place. The opportunity is there if they want to take it. If they do not, they can go on sticking in their trenches. We shall go on with our responsibilities of government. An opportunity will have been lost and the people of Northern Ireland will be the poorer for it.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State really believe that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland are now in favour of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Is he not aware of the alienation that is felt by the Unionist population in Northern Ireland? Has he any idea of the objection that the Unionist population has to the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
If the right hon. Gentleman believes, and is confident, that the people have changed their minds and that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland are now in favour of it—and that the voice of Unionism in this House is not the voice of the people of Northern Ireland—he could prove it in a simple way. If he feels so confident, why not ask the people of Northern Ireland this simple question in a referendum: do they believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is in the interests of the United Kingdom? I and, I hope, the Secretary of State and hon. Members in all parts of the House would be happy to abide by the answer.

Mr. King: I have never pretended—I have made this absolutely clear—that a substantial number of Unionist people are, or have been, happy about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Some of them felt extremely strongly at the time of the signing. I am well aware of that. Indeed, I recognise one or two faces here who have sought to come in quite close contact with me on various occasions to try to make sure that I was aware of that fact. I do not resent that. There were strong emotions at the time.
I recognise also that, increasingly, people—while they may have reservations—are honest enough to admit that it has not proved to be the threat or disadvantage that they feared, and there are a few who are honest enough to admit that perhaps it could just have some benefit.
If there is one hon. Member in the House who should recognise that, it is the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who must have recognised the benefits that could flow to Northern Ireland from a fall in the Sinn Fein vote and from an increase in support for constitutional nationalism—[Interruption.]—and that a reduction in seats and numbers of councillors, which has happened—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster cares to add up the numbers of Sinn Fein

councillors elected, he will find that in 1985 there were 59 and that on the last occasion there were 43. He may agree that that was a reduction. I would describe it as a fall of about 25 per cent. I should have thought that he would be the first to recognise that.

Mr. James Couchman: Paragraph 15 of the document "Developments since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement" mentions extradition and related matters. Extradition is perhaps the factor that has given most trouble in the three and a half years since the signing of the agreement. Is my right hon. Friend now happy that extradition arrangements have reached a satisfactory position? If not, what further aspirations has he to ensure that fugitives to the south from the north are returned for trial in the north if they are apprehended in the south?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right to say that that is an area which has given some of the most difficult problems and where some of the greatest emotions have been aroused. The report of the review shows that the two Governments are committed to continuing their examination of these matters with a view to ensuring that appropriate arrangements are in place, both for extradition and for extra-territorial jurisdiction. In other words, we have concerns in this area and the work is continuing, and my hon. Friend will be aware that extraditions have recently been completed and that extra-territorial prosecutions have been conducted—[Interruption.] It is a matter about which some will laugh. They are not in the business of trying to establish effective arrangements. They are more interested in shouting abuse at the Irish Government than in seeing whether, between us, we can find an effective way to get arrangements in place so that fugitives cannot escape from justice merely by transferring themselves to another jurisdiction.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a wide welcome for the review because it represents a limited but significant record of co-operation between two countries, and not least because there is no record in the review, which I have studied, of interference in Northern Ireland, which was feared by many. Nor has the other difficulty of the internationalisation of the problems of Northern Ireland occurred?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that benefits are flowing to both sides from cross-border co-operation and from the international fund for Ireland? May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) in hoping that my right hon. Friend will press hard with the Law Officers to make further progress under paragraph 18 of the review so as to achieve fair and effective procedures for extradition?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I confirm that the work is continuing. We are determined to ensure that it is effectively in place and we have made that point clear. Under the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act one successful extra-territorial prosecution has been conducted and a conviction achieved in Dublin. The Attorney-General has made it clear, depending on the suitability of individual cases, that we are ready to consider extra-territorial prosecution as well as extradition. The important point is that those who may be chargeable for crimes are brought before the court.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been a spectacular success, reflecting the skill of himself and his fellow Ministers and Ministers from the Republic of Ireland in the work that has been done, contrary to the prognostications at the time when it was originally launched? All the press in many countries said that the agreement would not last.
Will he also agree that much more needs to be done, both within the formal and informal framework of the agreement, on economic policy co-operation? Are there also prospects for greater co-operation within the EEC in achieving some of those goals?

Mr. King: Part of my message has been to try to discourage the claim that anything is a spectacular success. Irish issues—Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland relationships—long-standing and difficult as they are, do not lend themselves to immediate or overnight reconciliation or resolution. However, what I believe—and what I believe the House has honestly recognised in looking at the developments that have taken place—is that we are making steady and worthwhile progress in a constructive way that can only be of benefit to both communities and to all the people in the island of Ireland.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Notwithstanding that there have been improvements in cross-border security co-operation since, and as a result of, the signing of the agreement, may I ask my right hon. Friend what further progress he thinks can be made?

Mr. King: We can continue to reinforce that co-operation. The difficulty about security issues is that, obviously, I cannot talk about them in any detail. A lot of work is taking place and there is now ever closer co-operation in a number of important and relevant spheres. We are undertaking a considerable amount of work to try to ensure that wherever the terrorist may be and from wherever his resources may come—and I am talking not merely of armaments, weapons and explosives but particularly about an area that has not been sufficiently addressed in the past, which is money, cash, racketeering, smuggling and other aspects which undoubtedly have underpinned much of the terrorist effort—we can together steadily improve and concert our actions in all the necessary spheres.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, fundamental to any progress in Northern Ireland and at the heart of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, is a recognition of the rights and identities of the two traditions in Northern Ireland? The Anglo-Irish Agreement has given practical expression to that recognition by the improvements in appointments to public bodies, a code of conduct for the police, and improvements in the law relating to public order, employment and terrorism.

Mr. King: I agree with that. I feel that part of the quality of Northern Ireland comes from the diversity of the two traditions, which should be a source of enjoyment and appreciation and not a source of division. I have been struck by the Nationalists, who appreciate the marching tradition that exists in Northern Ireland. Marching, for instance, need not be seen as an aggressive and triumphalist act. Conducted in a responsible and non-provocative way, it can be seen as a decent

remembrance of an ancient tradition. So many aspcts of the culture and tradition could be enjoyed. One would certainly like to see mutual respect enhanced and encouraged in that way.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the application under Standing Order No. 20 first.

5 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Anglo-Irish Agreement review of the working of the conference".
The matter is specific, it is important and it is urgent. We have heard in the House today the benefits of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Good wishes were given to the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republic, and I am sure that everyone would wish him well. I hope that he gets better quickly.
However, today I am thinking of the widows and the orphans in Northern Ireland. Not a line in the document concerns them. I would go further and say that today I speak for them. What has been said in the House about the Anglo-Irish Agreement does not reflect what is happening in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) knows Downpatrick. It is the centre of his constituency. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a grammar school, a Roman Catholic grammar school and a Roman Catholic secondary school. The proposal is to close down the one state Protestant grammar school in Downpatrick, so that the only children who will have an education in a grammar school will have to travel to Belfast. Therefore, the children of working-class people will not have the opportunity of a grammar school education.
Those are the issues that lie at the heart of the matter—discrimination against the Protestant sector of the community. That is why I am saying that the House should have a thorough discussion of the matter. Hon. Members should not talk about Northern Ireland Members not making any approach to discuss the matter. This is the place where the matter should be discussed.
I would welcome a referendum in the whole of the United Kingdom. That is not the first time that I have said that. I said it 10 years ago. Let us hear from the people of the United Kingdom what they want to do with Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland will abide by their decision. However, I can assure the House that it will not go into a united Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the review of the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that has been announced.
I have listened with care and concern to what the hon. Member has said, but, as he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the


orders set down for today. I regret that the matter that he Community Charge has raised does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Community Charge

Mr. John McAllion: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the extension of the date for poll tax rebate applications in Scotland beyond tomorrow's deadline.
The House is bitterly divided over the poll tax, but it should be united on the specific matter of trying to ensure that those who are entitled receive in full such rebates as are available to them. Yet, unless rebate applications are received by tomorrow's deadline, there is a danger that many thousands of Scots will begin to lose their rebate entitlements, for a number of reasons.
First, in many areas of Scotland, the implementation of the poll tax is causing the kind of administrative chaos that the Opposition have long predicted. There is a huge backlog of current rebate applications. There has been a much higher than expected volume of changes to the register, as people move around and across regional council boundaries—for example, Strathclyde officials are processing more than 120,000 changes to their register every week. There has been a flood of calls from angry and perplexed poll tax payers who are demanding explanations and more information on the tax. All those factors are placing enormous strains on the administrative systems and on local authority staff, and, as a result, the system is failing to deliver and to meet the administrative requirements for implementing the tax.
Today's Glasgow Herald, for example, reports that regional council finance departments are admitting that many Scots are only now receiving their payment books—just a few days before the deadline. It is little wonder that in the midst of such administrative chaos many who will be entitled to rebates will not yet have fully realised that they have to apply for a rebate or that the deadline for applications is tomorrow. If they apply beyond tomorrow's deadline, their entitlements to rebate will not be backdated to 1 April, and they will therefore suffer heavy financial loss.
That is a deplorable situation, but what is worse is that a party represented in the House is deliberately aggravating the situation by encouraging those who are not entitled to rebates to flood councils with rebate applications in the hope of bringing the entire rebate process to a grinding halt. That party is the Scottish National party. I do not know what kind of political capital it hopes to gain from such gross irresponsibility, but one thing that is certain is that the losers will be the poor, who will be denied rebates which to them could be a matter of make or break.
The poor must not be made to pay the price either of bureaucratic breakdown or of malevolent politicking. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to consider my application for a debate on this important matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,


the need for an extension of the deadline for applications for community charge rebates in Scotland beyond tomorrow's deadline.
I regret that I have to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer as I gave the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised meets the requirements of the Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Atomic Energy Act 1989.
2. National Maritime Museum Act 1989.
3. Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Act 1989.
4. Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.
5. Scrabster Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1989

Lonrho (Letter)

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) called for a debate based on a whole series of early-day motions that he has tabled. I apologise for raising the matter when the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber. I did look for him in the building so that I could notify him of the fact that I was going to mention him, but I could not find him. Most of those early-day motions concern my constituent, Mr. David Coghlan, and his allegations of telephone tapping for Lonrho. Mr. Coghlan sent a letter to the hon. Member for Workington on 11 May, of which I have a copy, and a copy also went to Mr. Rowland of Lonrho.
The main thrust of that letter is illustrated by the following quote:
You may recall I came to see you in the House and you showed me a photocopy of what you alleged was an affidavit sworn by myself. The contents of this so-called affidavit were extensively used by you in your early-day motions. You refused to give me a copy of this so-called affidavit. I believed it to be a forgery and told The Guardian just that … In order to put the record straight I am enclosing with this letter a copy of the statement in which I set out the events of 1985 to date to the best of my ability.
He went on to say that he was sending a copy of the letter to me, his Member of Parliament, and to Mr. Rowland.
I seek your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether the Table Office should, in future, accept early-day motions from the hon. Member for Workington on this subject, as I have given public notice to the House that there are grave questions about the authenticity of the material on which the hon. Gentleman bases his early-day motions and on which the hon. Gentleman is relying for his vendetta against Mr. Rowland of Lonrho.

Mr. Speaker: I can give a ruling on this. First, the hon. Gentleman should have notified the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that he was going to raise this matter. Secondly, every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says in an early-day motion and, provided it is in order, it can then go on the Order Paper. I cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of statements that may be made.

Mr. Dickens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you for not informing the hon. Member for Workington, but, unfortunately, I did not know that he intended to raise this item during business questions this afternoon. I discussed this matter with your Office, Mr. Speaker, and with the hon. Gentleman and I intended to raise it in the House after the recess. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on the subject today, so I had to raise the matter today.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day — Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

POWER TO SECURE FURTHER UNDERTAKINGS OR ISSUE FURTHER DIRECTIONS

'(1) Subsection (2) below applies where, by reason of any undertaking or directions under section 12 of this Act, any directions substituted for such directions by the Tribunal or any order made by the Tribunal for the purpose of giving effect to any such undertaking or directions, a notice has been served on any person under section 35(2) of this Act.
(2) If, while the notice has effect, the Commission forms the opinion—

(a) that the progress specified in the notice in respect of any period has not been made, and
(b) that the person concerned ought to take action for promoting equality of opportunity in addition to the action required to be taken under the existing undertaking or directions,

section 12 of this Act shall again apply in relation to the person concerned as if the Commission had conducted a fresh investigation under section 11 of this Act.
(3) Where, by virtue of this section, the Commission secures a written undertaking from the person concerned or serves a notice on him containing directions—

(a) the undertaking or directions shall have effect in place of the existing undertaking or directions, and
(b) any notice previously served on him under section 35(2) of this Act shall cease to have effect, but without prejudice to any power to give a new notice under that subsection.'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Bill, having passed its Second Reading and completed 18 Committee sessions, now moves back to the Floor of the House.
New clause 1 represents a significant strengthening of the provisions in the Bill dealing with goals and timetables, and complements other amendments on the same subject which have been tabled to clauses 30 and 31.
As the Bill stands at present the Fair Employment Commission may serve on an employer a notice relating to goals and timetables, and may make further inquiries of the employer at six-monthly intervals to assess what progress has been made. The amendments to clauses 30 and 31 to which I have just referred will enable an employer to set his own goals and timetables in the context of the periodic review of his work force which he is obliged to undertake under clause 30. The amendment will empower the commission, in those circumstances also, to make further inquiries in order to assess progress.
The new clause essentially completes the exercise by enabling the commission to follow up a notice relating to goals and timetables by means of seeking further undertakings from an employer or issuing further directions to him. Both undertakings and directions are, of course, enforceable before the tribunal. An employer's failure to achieve the objectives which the commission thinks he should be able to achieve, as a result of action taken following earlier undertakings or directions, or his

failure to achieve such objectives within the time the commission thinks appropriate, therefore become the triggers to allow the commission to seek further undertakings or to impose or modify, so as to strengthen, directions. The new clause also makes it clear that undertakings given or directions issued under this clause replace and supersede any previously given by or issued to the employer. I trust that the new clause is clear and I believe that it will be acceptable to the official Opposition as it will strengthen the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I agree with the Minister that the Bill was fully discussed in Committee. On a number of important points we were able to convince the Government of the need to alter and, in some cases, improve the Bill. We are delighted that the Minister and the Government have been able so to do.
In the spirit of bipartisanship that has arisen from the Bill, we certainly welcome new clause 1. As the Minister rightly says, it strengthens the goals and timetables and, therefore, it is warmly welcomed by the official Opposition.

Mr. Peter Robinson: There is no doubt that new clause 1 does exactly what the Minister and the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) suggest—it strengthens the goals and timetables set out in the Bill.
It is important to consider the backcloth against which the goals and timetables will be used. The Bill is not what it purports to be—in favour of fair employment. To me and my colleagues, fair employment means that a person gains employment on merit—that that person is the best for the job. By inserting the provision that, over a specific period, the work force must be of a certain composition means that the criterion for employment is no longer merit, but the religious or political views of those who come to the personnel office. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but does the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? He seems to have stopped the gesticulation in which he was engaged. Perhaps that is the kind of behaviour that we can expect from the Alliance party.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is the hon. Gentleman talking to me?

Mr. Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware of the gestures which he makes, which suggests more about his character than anything else.
Rather than enforcing the principle of employment on merit, the Bill means that people will now be employed on the basis of their religion. That is contrary to the spirit of fair employment and, for that reason, my colleagues and I will oppose the new clause.
I made it clear in Committee, and I repeat today, that I support the principle of fair employment. I believe that the best way to ensure fair employment is to impose severe punishments on anyone who discriminates in his employment policy. The steps that have been taken by the Minister, however, have been taken because of pressure coming from the Republic of Ireland as a result of the Anglo-lrish Agreement. The documentation that we discussed earlier this afternoon specifies that the Bill is part of the process instigated by the Intergovernmental Conference. The Secretary of State, however, has tried to deny that there is any basis for my argument that the government of Northern Ireland is now shared between


the Government of the Irish Republic and the British Government. The Bill was born out of the Intergovernmental Conference and was pushed through the Anglo-Irish process by the Government of the Irish Republic, no doubt with accompanying pressure from those with republican traditions in the United States.
The new clause will bring more division within the workplace and it will not assist in bringing a proper peace to the work force. We have a good work force in Northern Ireland and our workplaces have not experienced many problems. The Government, however, are attempting to introduce tension in the workplace and the new clause will go a long way towards that.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I have to agree with many of the observations of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). Will the Minister point out to us how he sees a policy of goals and timetables being able to rest easily with the merit principle? Does he not agree with the views expressed by the Confederation of British Industry, which is committed to fair employment and held seminars on fair employment long before this legislation was drawn up? Does he accept that the Bill puts severe pressure on the merit principle? As the CBI interprets it, it is expected that employers should meet heavy demands without somehow transgressing that principle. How are they to avoid transgressing the merit principle if they are forced to comply with goals and timetables?

Mr. Viggers: I reaffirm that the merit principle, the appointment of the best man or woman for the job, is central to this legislation. It is a principle which has guided us throughout the drafting of all the clauses. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) referred to the CBI and I pay a tribute to the co-operative attitude of the CBI. I think that the CBI would recognise, as perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not, that it is necessary to have legislation to rectify the imbalance in employment in Northern Ireland. That is what this legislation sets out to do.
The new clause simply broadens slightly the application of goals and timetables, which was extensively debated in Committee. I would not wish to go further into the merits of the issue, except to say that we are urging companies to apply good personnel practice and to look to all the population in Northern Ireland for recruitment purposes. In so far as companies may have been drawing from only one part of the community, we are encouraging them to look at all the community. So the guiding principles in this Bill have been the merit principle and good personnel practice.
There is nothing further to say on that point and, on the basis of those two principles, I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 3.

Division No. 216]
[5.21 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Atkinson, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Amos, Alan
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Armstrong, Hilary
Beith, A. J.


Ashby, David
Bell, Stuart


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bellingham, Henry





Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Benyon, W.
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Boateng, Paul
Hunter, Andrew


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ingram, Adam


Boswell, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Jack, Michael


Bowis, John
Janner, Greville


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bright, Graham
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Knapman, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Burns, Simon
Latham, Michael


Butterfill, John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Livsey, Richard


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lord, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McGrady, Eddie


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Cohen, Harry
Maclean, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
McNamara, Kevin


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Madden, Max


Corbett, Robin
Mans, Keith


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cormack, Patrick
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Couchman, James
Mates, Michael


Cran, James
Maude, Hon Francis


Curry, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mellor, David


Devlin, Tim
Michael, Alun


Dixon, Don
Mills, Iain


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dover, Den
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Durant, Tony
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dykes, Hugh
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Paice, James


Fallon, Michael
Pike, Peter L.


Favell, Tony
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Price, Sir David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Riddick, Graham


Forman, Nigel
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Forth, Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Foster, Derek
Ryder, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Sackville, Hon Tom


Franks, Cecil
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Freeman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gow, Ian
Steen, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Stern, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stevens, Lewis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Ground, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Summerson, Hugo


Hague, William
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hanley, Jeremy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hannam, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Harris, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Thorne, Neil


Haynes, Frank
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hayward, Robert
Vaz, Keith


Heddle, John
Viggers, Peter


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hill, James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hinchliffe, David
Walden, George


Hordern, Sir Peter
Waller, Gary


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wareing, Robert N.


Howells, Geraint
Wells, Bowen


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann






Winterton, Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wise, Mrs Audrey



Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory


Yeo, Tim
and Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


McCrea, Rev William
Tellers for the Noes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Roy Beggs and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rev. Ian Paisley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not complaining because I have done this, but I understand that while I was out of the Chamber the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) suggested that I had been given incorrect information and had tabled an early-day motion including that material. The document that I received, and on which the early-day motion was based, is a sworn affidavit that I interviewed the constituent of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth in my office for one and a half hours, and that during that meeting he was unable to deny the total authenticity of that material. Subsequently, I have sought, and gained, a further affidavit from a person who was directly involved in the drawing up of the original affidavit. I stand behind every statement that I made and seek to confirm the information contained in the affidavit.
The original affidavit is signed by Mr. Coughlan, a self-confessed phone tapper, in which he states that he, on behalf of Mr. Tiny Rowland and Lonrho, tapped the phones of the A1-Fayeds.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Mr. Speaker dealt with that point earlier on and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has now got his point on the record.

New Clause 2

MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE TRAINING

After section 37 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 there is inserted—

"Measures to encourage training from under-represented community

`37A. Nothing in Parts III or IV shall render unlawful any act done by

(a) an employer,
(b) an employment agency,
(c) a vocational organisation, or
(d) a person providing services mentioned in section 22(1) in or in connection with affording members of the Roman Catholic, or members of the Protestant, community in Northern Ireland access to facilities for training which is not intentionally confined to members of the Roman Catholic or Protestant community as the case may be and which would help to fit them for employment, for employment in a particular capacity, or for a particular employment or occupation, where the act is done in pursuance of affirmative action (within the meaning of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989'."—[Mr. McNamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 87, in line 20, leave out clause 51.

Mr. McNamara: The new clause seeks to protect affirmative action programmes from challenges under the provisions dealing with direct discrimination. The issue was extensively debated in Committee, and, therefore, I shall not detain the House too long on this point. However, it is essential to put it on record.
The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that employers can organise training schemes for the purposes of affirmative action. Those schemes are calculated to help members of an under-represented community to obtain employment in a place of work. On that, the Government and the Opposition are as one. However, in order to do so, the employer must be protected from those who would claim that affirmative action constitutes a violation of the prohibition on discrimination. That is normally done by means of a specific exemption, which excludes affirmative action from the prohibition on discrimination. That is the case with the legislation that deals with racial and sexual discrimination in Great Britain.
More interestingly, the position has been recognised by the Government, who have introduced amendments that protect employers who advertise posts in a way that appeals exclusively to the under-represented community. The Bill also contains exemptions protecting the employer engaged in affirmative action training schemes from allegations of indirect discrimination. We welcome those.
However, there is a difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition which the Government have not, as yet, accepted. We believe in the need to provide an exemption against direct discrimination. The Government have two objections to that. First, they sincerely believe that they have done enough to protect employers from such a charge. They believe that if an employer provides a training scheme, which would be indirectly discriminatory in the absence of the exemptions provided for in clause 51, the scheme cannot, at the same time, be directly discriminatory. Unfortunately, that is incorrect.
The fallacy of that argument is revealed by the Bill. Clause 47 clearly relates to situations in which a particular practice may be both directly and indirectly discriminatory. In other words, there is an overlap between the two forms of discrimination. That is why the Opposition continue to believe that some form of exemption must be included for direct discrimination as well as for indirect discrimination.
Secondly, in Committee, the Government argued that they also believed that an affirmative action scheme that does not totally exclude members of one or other community could not be considered directly discriminatory. However, the Bill contains no requirement totally to exclude one or the other community to demonstrate direct discrimination: The definition of direct discrimination in clause 47(2)(a) states:
on either of those grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons,
The test is whether a person is shown less favourable treatment, not whether he is exclude.
The Government have set their face against permitting training schemes that are religiously exclusive. The new clause is explicit on that point. It would make it unlawful for an employer to set out with the intention of setting up a training scheme to exclude members of one or other of the two communities. Therefore, we hope that we have answered one of the Government's arguments relating specifically to religion.
There is a need to clear up the Bill so that employers have a clear understanding of what is, and what is not, permissible. The House cannot allow excessive ambiguity to creep in. That would discourage employers from taking action to rectify religious imbalances within the work force.
The new clause has a further merit. It deals with another continuing and vexatious problem—the conflict between clause 51 as it stands, the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the European Community's equal treatment directive of 1976. At present the exemptions provided for affirmative action with respect to indirect discrimination are themselves indirectly discriminatory in regard to women. The criteria mentioned, such as age and length of service, could have a detrimental effect on women, and would therefore be subject to challenge in the European Court of Justice. The new clause would prevent such unfortunate circumstances from arising.
The Opposition are convinced that the Government did not intend the effect that the clause will have, but we think that careful consideration should be given to correcting the drafting. I hope that they will look favourably on the new clause, or will give an undertaking that it will result in changes being made in the other place.

Mr. Ashdown: I shall not detain the House for long. Let me say merely that I fully support the new clause, which strikes me as well and carefully drafted. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that he hoped that the Government would accept the spirit of the new clause. I think that he and I both know that the hand behind it is that of Dr. Chris McCrudden, a widely respected expert on these matters. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept both the spirit and the vast majority of the words of the hon. Gentleman's cogent argument.
The Government seem to be in a bit of a muddle. There is a clear contradiction between their admirable, laudable and supportable intention to provide affirmation action on the one hand, and their equally admirable aim to prevent indirect discrimination on the other. It is a matter of unfortunate circumstance that, at least in some instances, the one may be able to impinge on the other. Two admirable acts have been so juxtaposed that they may inhibit each other.
The ambiguity needs some clarification, as I hope that the Government will accept. It would be a crying shame if what emerged from Committee as an excellent Bill—as a result of the Government's flexibility and the Opposition's cogent arguments—were to suffer from the Government's feeling that they had made their quota of accommodations and could not make a further one in this instance. The case, I think, stands by itself, and I very much hope that the Government will respond positively.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I think that clause 51 has a further defect. As drafted, it takes account of only two religious communities in Northern Ireland, completely ignoring others.
Unlike this island, Northern Ireland contains rapidly expanding ethnic communities. Furthermore, we are glad to say that we experience no friction or difficulty in absorbing those communities into the life and business activities of Northern Ireland. I feel that we should extend

the narrow definition in the clause, which mentions only Roman Catholic and Protestant communities, making no allowance for others who, as British citizens—and, for that matter, non-British citizens—have a perfect right to enjoy the fulness of life in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge that many ethnic groupings contribute a great deal to the economy of Northern Ireland. Many are self-employed, but a considerable number are employed, and I feel that it would be a great mistake to exclude them from the provisions of the clause.

Mr. Viggers: We are dealing with the crucial subject of outreach training carried out in pursuance of affirmation action, which is no simple matter. There is no doubt that such training can play an important role in remedying under-representation, and it is essential that the Bill should make appropriate provision for it. Clause 51 is a genuine attempt to do that, but I accept that the Opposition and, indeed, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland are sincerely concerned about it.
The Opposition consider that the circumstances specified in clause 51 could give rise to accusations of direct as well as indirect discrimination against any employer implementing the training permitted under the clause. Protection is, of course, already afforded in relation to indirect discrimination, and the Government are not as convinced as the Opposition of the legal validity of the need for protection against direct discrimination in the circumstances specified in clause 51. They readily accept, however, that the Opposition are motivated by a genuine concern to ensure as much protection as practicable against possible charges of direct discrimination, in addition to the protection against indirect discrimination that is already provided. They also accept that the Equal Opportunities Commission has genuine concerns about the criteria specified in clause 51—unemployment, age and length of service—and consider that they are potentially indirectly discriminatory against women and could invite challenge under not only national but European Community legislation.
The Government's concern is to ensure that the detailed provisions of the Bill, while satisfying the requirements of the Opposition and the Equal Opportunities Commission, do not permit religion-specific training which would be divisive and unfair in Northern Ireland. I respect the action of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in tabling a new clause that takes account of our strong views, which are based on the position in Northern Ireland as we see it.
New clause 2 looks helpful: it offers a possible solution that could accommodate the genuine objectives of all the parties concerned. It merits serious and positive consideration, which it is receiving. Although I am not in a position to express my acceptance of the precise form of words proposed, I can accept the broad approach in principle. I therefore propose to continue my examination of the new clause with a view to bringing forward an appropriate amendment in the Lords. On the basis of that commitment, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see his way clear to withdrawing the new clause.
The concern expressed by the Equal Opportunities Commission was on two counts. First, as I have said, the commission feared that the criteria specified in clause 51


might give rise to potentially indirectly discriminatory action against women. We are addressing that point in our consideration of a subsequent Lords amendment. The commission's second fear was that the gender-specific training provided under the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 might be at risk of challenge on the ground of indirect religious discrimination. In Committee I gave a firm committment that nothing in the Bill would weaken the provisions of existing sex discrimination legislation, and that remains the Government's position.
It is likely that the approach suggested in new clause 2 will not answer the commission's second concern. I therefore propose to ensure that the necessary legislation is effected to satisfy the commission's anxiety to protect gender-specific training from any accusation of indirect religious discrimination.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are seeking to meet the points that he has raised, and will be prepared to withdraw the new clause.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister made no reply to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). Perhaps he would like to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and say whether, in considering the new clause, he will make provision for no minority to be discriminated against, and for all to stand on an equal plane of fair opportunity.

Mr. McNamara: No hon. Member on either side of the House wants discrimination to be practised against anyone on grounds of race, colour or creed. I am sure that I speak for the Government as well as for the Opposition.
I found the Minister's reply most encouraging and helpful, and indeed generous, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 3

ACTS DONE TO SAFEGUARD NATIONAL SECURITY ETC.

`Subsections (2) and (3) of section 42 of the Fair Employment Act 1976 (certificate that act done for purpose of safeguarding national security, or of protecting public safety or public order to be conclusive evidence of that fact) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. McNamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This matter was of considerable concern to our side of the Committee and in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady).
The effect of this new clause is to allow an independent scrutiny by the judiciary of national security notices issued by the Secretary of State, which at the present time cannot be challenged. This is an old argument over section 42. We believe that it is wrong for that decision to remain unchallengeable, first, because it is an anomalous element within the Bill. One of the strange facets of part II of the Bill concerns contract compliance. A contractor can be exempted and awarded a contract by the Secretary of State on the grounds of national security even if he happens to be an unqualified person, that is to say, a person who deliberately discriminates. Therefore, under the normal qualifications, and despite the enormous and very difficult procedures, he is eventually deemed to be not a suitable

person to redeem a Government contract or a grant, but such an unqualified person may be given such a contract or grant on the ground of national security.
Under part II of the Bill the Secretary of State's decision in such a matter would be unchallengeable because the courts would be able to exercise judicial review of his decision. Under section 42 of the 1976 Act no such judicial review exists in the case of a person denied employment or a contract by virtue of the Secretary of State's national security certificate. This certificate allows the Secretary of State to prevent an investigation into a case of alleged discrimination on the ground of national security. No provision for any form of appeal or judicial supervision exists to prevent abuses of power in this way.
The other anomaly is that it is not in conformity with the Sex Discrimination Order under which, since an amendment moved by the Government last year, national security certificates are subject to judicial review. That is the case of Johnston v the RUC. As a result of this provision, and particularly because the tribunal may at times have both a sex and a religious jurisdiction to carry out, a ludicrous situation arises. An individual can bring a case under the Fair Employment Bill and under the Sex Discrimination Order. If a national security certificate were issued by the Secretary of State, the complainant could seek a judicial review under the Sex Discrimination Order but not under the Bill. That is obviously nonsense.
Secondly, once again, this Bill could be in conflict with international law. The case of Johnston v the RUC went to the Communities courts, but under the European convention on human rights there is an insistence that an individual must have redress against an arbitrary use of power. So, again, with regard to the Secretary of State's certificate, there could be an application to the European convention on human rights.
Thirdly, there is widespread concern in Northern Ireland about this issue, as demonstrated by the recent BBC programme "Taking Liberties". The Minister may object by saying that section 42 has been used only in a limited number of cases, and that is correct.
That is wrong for two reasons. If an injustice has been done, a person should be entitled to a correction of that injustice under our system. Secondly, and more importantly, within Northern Ireland itself it is widely believed that the formal use of section 42 is merely the tip of the iceberg. It is widely believed that individuals are often denied access to employment on the pretext of national security when, in fact, the real reason for their exclusion is quite different.
There are two infamous cases of people denied work at Ballylumford. One of them, a scaffolder, could not work on national security grounds in Ballylumford but could be employed in the headquarters of the British Army in Lisburn, Northern Ireland opposite the General Officer Commanding. There is also the case of a person who was denied a job at Ballylumford but nevertheless got an invitation to the garden party at Hillsborough to meet the Queen Mother, together with a map of how to get there.
Our proposal recognises the need for national security exemption. Judicial review provides sufficient flexibility and security to combine proper concerns for national security with protection against the arbitrary use of power. An application to a judge ex-parte in this matter does not necessarily need the person making the appeal to see the evidence and does not have to take place in set premises.


The judge concerned can examine the evidence upon which a decision is based at, for example the headquarters of the RUC.
One does not doubt the integrity of the Secretary of State. He has grievous responsibility in making such a decision. He can be led into error, as recent cases before the courts might possibly reveal. Let me give a hypothetical example. Public authority X, where there is an overwhelming majority of one group employed, decides to issue an application for a job or, more specifically, for a contract. Y, a member of the other community, either applies for a job or for the contract and gets that contract. Thereupon the majority work force of public authority X objects because, in one phrase, the person involved came from the borders, which is a polite euphemism for saying that he is a member of the nationalist community.
X's work force now objects to Y getting the job, because they are from the borders. X is in a difficulty with his work force and therefore withdraws the contract on the ground that Y is not competent to carry out the contract. Y then produces evidence to show not only that he is competent to carry out the contract but that he has carried out similar contracts in the past and is in every way well suited to carry out work of that nature. So, X having given way to the pressure from his work force to exclude a person from the contract or the job, seeks another way round and seeks to ensure that section 42 notice is issued by the Secretary of State to say that Y is in fact a potential threat, or a suspected threat, to national security.
I have given that example because it mirrors in many ways the case now before the court.
The effect of that case is that a person has been discriminated against on the ground of religion. There has been an attempt to disguise that discrimination by saying, first that, because a person is not competent, he cannot carry out the task at hand. When the competence is not shown to be a real reason for denying the employment, section 42 is called in to deal the blow.
If the Secretary of State has no reason to give and is not subject to judicial review, we cannot know how or why the decision has been made and whether it has been made fairly.
Many of the decisions are questions of judgment. We acknowledge that immediately. They are important matters concerning the life and safety of the subjects. However, they concern the freedom of the individual, the right to pursue one's chosen vocation without fear of the malicious intent of somebody objecting to one's religion, the malicious use of a confidential telephone call or somebody trying to settle a personal or industrial score. Those are the problems that arise now and we are seeking to overcome them by suggesting that the Secretary of State's complete power of exemption should be looked at carefully. It would be helpful if we had the power of judicial review of decisions made by the Secretary of State.

6 pm

Mr. Viggers: The new clause, which is identical to new clause 6 tabled in Committee, is intended to repeal subsections (2) and (3) of section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. Subsection (2) provides that a certificate signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State certifies that an act specified in the

certificate was done for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1)—safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order. Subsection (3) provides that a document purporting to be such a certificate shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, shall be deemed to be such a certificate. The effect of the new clause is to abolish the section 42 certificate procedure, but not the national security defence.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) acknowledged the regrettable but nevertheless clear need to retain the national security safeguard provided in section 42(1) of the 1976 Act. The continuing need for such a provision was noted by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and there are few, if any, in the House who would attempt to deny that need. Nevertheless, the real effect of the hon. Gentleman's new clause 3 would be to dismantle the usefulness of the safeguard completely, and I feel sure that that is not his intention. Let me explain what I mean.
An act is done by an employer on the ground of safeguarding national security, but is challenged on the ground that it is in fact an act of religious discrimination. The case comes before the Fair Employment Tribunal. If subsections (2) and (3) of section 42 are removed and the certification schemes abolished, the employer must appear before the tribunal to substantiate his claim that his action was justified on grounds of safeguarding national security, or protecting public safety or public order. Revelation of the kind of information which might have led to an employer forming that sort of judgment could be extremely damaging, not just to the overall security effort in Northern Ireland but, in some circumstances, to the safety of individuals. The House will not expect me to amplify these concerns, but they lie at the very root of the national security safeguard and the certification procedure which is part and parcel of that safeguard.

Mr. Harold McCusker: I apologise for being late, but I was unavoidably detained. However, I have listened carefully to the Minister and he is giving the impression that employers make judgments on national security and that it is employers who use that excuse to discriminate. In every case that has been presented to me where a person has been denied employment with a construction company at a security base within perhaps the grounds of Stormont castle, and the company has employed, say, a Roman Catholic and submitted the list of names to the Ministry of Defence or the Northern Ireland Office, the complaints are from the employers. They complain about the action taken by the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends in discriminating against a person by saying that he is not fit to work on the site. Who is the discriminator in those circumstances, or who is making the excuse of discrimination? Employers do not cite national security. Most employers could not care tuppence for national security. They are concerned only with earning a profit and getting their job done.

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Section 42 procedure is used by the Government. The certificate is signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and it is for him to say that there are issues of national security involved and that he deems it necessary, in the public interest, that an individual should not be entitled to take advantage of the claim of discrimination which he is alleging,
I do not demur from the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he will accept that concerns have been expressed about section 42 because, by nature of the procedure and because national security is involved, it is not possible to be as clear as one would like about the grounds on which the certificate has been signed. As the House would expect, section 42 certificate applications are taken seriously by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. They are subject to detailed scrutiny.

Mr. Ashdown: We all recognise that this is a complex matter. That was illustrated by the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). However, I do not understand why the Minister is suggesting that allowing the Secretary of State's decision to be open to judicial review would be damaging in this case but works perfectly well under the Sex Discrimination Order 1988. If it applies in that case, why can it not apply here?

Mr. Viggers: I shall come to that. It is a detailed point and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed with my argument until I reach it.
As I have said, concerns have been expressed about section 42 and we would like to find ways of modifying the system to make it more demonstrably fair. Although those responsible for the administration of the system can see that it is fair, we must seek to make it demonstrably fair.
As I warned in Committee, we were not optimistic about devising modifications that would not risk undermining the entire operation of the national security safeguard. I have to say that, at least for the time being, we are not in a position to make any change to the existing system. That does not mean that we have abandoned our attempt to meet the concerns that have been expressed. We are currently examining the administrative procedures to see whether they can usefully be revised. I am sorry that this is a disappointing response to hon. Members' concerns but we cannot countenance any change that would undermine a vital safeguard.

Mr. Molyneaux: The Minister should be assured that he should not have any qualms of conscience. We are not directing our criticisms solely at Conservative Secretaries of State and Ministers. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) would admit that Labour Secretaries of State indulged in that activity with even greater enthusiasm in their day.

Mr. Viggers: We take no pleasure in the administration of the system. The prime concern must be the security of Northern Ireland and its people. However, we are seeking to find ways of demonstrating that the system we operate is fair and can be seen to be fair. That is why we are expressing so much concern about this point.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked about the distinction between fair employment provisions and those relating to sex discrimination. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has made a case for changing section 42 in the same way that article 53 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 was changed in 1988—removing the certification system altogether. Despite his pleadings, I am not convinced. The judgment in the Johnston case, which led to the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Order 1988, was concerned

only with equality of opportunity between the sexes. Legislation on religious discrimination is unaffected by that judgment.
He also mentioned the apparently anomalous case of a complaint of religious discrimination under part III of the 1976 Act which also contained allegations of sex discrimination contrary to part III of the 1976 order. I agree that this anomaly exists in theory, but I seriously doubt whether it is ever likely to arise in practice.
The national security issues which might have been relevant in the context of article 53 of the 1976 order are not the same as the issues which would be relevant in the context of section 42 of the 1976 Act. The circumstances when being female could give rise to national security issues are likely to be limited, whereas such issues under the 1976 Act are likely to turn on a person's political opinion or supposed political opinion, and would therefore be uncommon. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I support the new clause so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). On behalf of my party, I tabled amendments on this matter in Committee, and I think that I elicited some sympathy from the Minister because he undertook to deliberate on the points made to him. I am sure that he honoured that commitment, but I am extremely disappointed that the results of the deliberation are "no change".
For the benefit of people who do not live in Northern Ireland, it is important to understand the context of my anxiety that a safeguard should be given to individuals and companies when national security is invoked. A telephone call on a confidential line can prevent a person from obtaining or taking a job or can result in a person being dismissed. The use of the confidential telephone can prevent a firm from being given a contract or can result in a firm being moved off a site. Of course, that can he done only after the issue of a section 42 certificate.
There have been occasions in my experience, and which I am capable of proving, when a section 42 certificate was withdrawn because it was invalid and not based on adequate evidence. In Committee I tried to achieve a means by which decision making could be challenged in a confidential way. A person or company can be accused, found guilty and "sentenced" without having any knowledge of the reason for the accusation. It was to try to achieve a vehicle by which justice could be seen to be done, to use an often quoted phrase, that we suggested a means of appeal so that the persons concerned could at least be made aware of their alleged transgressions and could be given the opportunity, as justice demands, of presenting a defence. It was nothing more dramatic than that. It was simply to try to introduce an element of natural justice.
I am extremely disappointed that the Minister has come to us again with no progress to report on that matter, although I admit that he has made much progress in many other spheres. On this matter no progress appears to have been made and no hope is being held out. Cases can crop up from day to day. I have seen young apprentices and adult men and women deprived of jobs, and I have seen companies deprived of contracts without apparent justification. After representations from me, some people were reinstated. Every Northern Ireland Member will have similar experiences. That is why it is important for us to


have a means by which the defence of innocence can be made and reconsideration can be undertaken by the Secretary of State. Much of this is done on the basis not of national security, but simply of raw, naked sectarianism.

Mr. Ashdown: I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but the Minister's argument was so tortuous and unconvincing that I wonder whether there is something more at the heart of this that is not being revealed to us. I read the reports of the proceedings in Committee and they seemed to be characterised by a great deal of intelligence and logic and people adopted accommodating positions. The Minister's argument has not been characterised either by such accommodation or by such logic.
The Minister suggested that because an injustice is likely to be small it does not matter. It is the argument about the housemaid's baby. Surely in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland it is more important there than elsewhere to apply justice equally and fairly. We all know that there are quirks and idiocies in the law as it applies in England, and that they take a good deal of time to iron out.
The Government have the opportunity to set in place a law whose application will be manifestly different from those of a similar law which applies to discrimination in other areas. It is clear that there is the possibility of one case running in parallel with another. A person against whom a security certificate has been laid could appeal in a sex discrimation case. That person has the right to appeal to a judicial review, but another person who is claiming discrimination on religious grounds and against whom a security certificate is also laid does not have the right to such an appeal. How could that be fair, logical or just?
The Minister's argument on judicial review rests on two pillars. The first is that there will be relatively few—I think that is what the Minister said—cases of discrimination on grounds of sex which would have national security implications. I do not argue that there will be many such cases, but the Minister must concede that potentially there will be some. Why should they be treated on a different basis?
6.15 pm
The second pillar of the Minister's argument is that providing judicial review will so wholly undermine the process of security certification as to make it worthless. If it does not make it worthless in the case of sex discrimination—and the Government have not taken that view—why should it make it worthless in this case? I do not understand why the Minister is following a course which is so manifestly not equal on both sides and which so obviously does not stand up to logical scrutiny.
I suppose that the House must take refuge in the fact that in the past the Minister has accommodated arguments and when he has told us that he will go away and think further about a matter we must give him the benefit of the doubt that he will do that. I appeal to him to find a mechanism to meet the legitimate grievances that have been put forward. If he does not, he has in his hands a positive and deliberate mechanism to build into the process of the law that he is constructing an inequality which will make the law look like an idiot when it is applied.

Mr. Viggers: Out of a total of 28 section 42 certificates, 17 were signed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland only after very careful deliberation. That puts into context the problem with which we are dealing. Certificates are not issued lightly; they are issued with great care. A section 42 certificate is conclusive in the sense that it is a statement by the Secretary of State that national security is involved and that, therefore, the merits of the issue cannot be investigated. In some instances the very demonstration of the case in public or to the people concerned, the very explanation of the facts that have been brought together, would be contrary to the national security interest. I cannot elaborate further on what I have said to the House.

Mr. McNamara: I am disappointed at what the Minister has said. Although I do not intend to divide the House on the issue because it may be raised in another place in more detail, I should like to make one or two observations on what the Minister has said. First and most important, he said that merely because Johnston v. the RUC concerned women, he did not think that it would be a terribly important precedent. I shall give him an example.
Within a sensitive area, job applications are sought for three clerks. Suppose that there are a number of applications for those jobs, one of which is from a woman, but that they are all filled by men and that the woman is denied one. The woman could bring an action on the ground of sex discrimination because all the other applicants were men and that, on the balance of merit, she should have been seriously considered for an appointment rather than be caught out because of her sex. Alternatively, she could make an appeal to the tribunal on the same basis, and then to the courts.
It could be that that woman applicant is a potential para-military. However, if all the appointees had been women, and the one male applicant had not been appointed in the interests of national security, he would not, under the Minister's proposals, be allowed to appeal against that decision except on the ground of sex discrimination. He would not be able to do that if all the others appointed were men. Equally, a woman applicant could not appeal if there were women among those appointed.
I hoped that the Minister would take a stronger approach to the question of administrative procedures. A number of cases currently before the courts concern situations in which strange decisions have been made. It will be impossible for the Government to defend their position. Someone will inevitably take a case to the European Court citing the European convention on human rights and arbitrary uses of power, with the result that there will be another cause célébre such as the Grogan case. That would not be good for the Government, and not a happy precedent to set in dealing with the sensitive matter of security in Northern Ireland. It will not help matters if the Government are paraded before the European Court for being insensitive to human rights. Nor will it do our country, or the administration of justice, any good, or help to enhance confidence in legal and civil administration.
I hope that the Government will be able to produce a more persuasive argument when the Bill goes to another place. While I understand the Government's arguments, it is possible under existing systems to provide for a degree


of review by an independent member of the judiciary. A judge can say, "I have considered certain matters where I consider that the Secretary of State's judgment was right, but in other cases it was wrong and an injustice was done." I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

CONTRACT AND GRANT COMPLIANCE

'(1) Except in contracts certified in accordance with the provisions of section 39(7) of this Act, all public authorities shall include the provisions of the Code of Practice in every contract hereafter entered into with every person ("the contractor").
(2) The contractor shall include the provisions of the Code of Practice to this Act in every sub-contract so that such provisions are binding upon each subcontractor, unless the sub-contract is certified in accordance with the provisions of section 39(7) of this Act.
(3) Every public authority shall require as a condition for the award of any contract that each prospective contractor or subcontractor shall submit a statement in writing to the effect that he is already implementing the provisions of the Code of Practice.
(4) Every public authority which administers a programme involving financial assistance included in section 41(2) of this Act applies shall require as a condition for the approval of any such grant, that the applicant shall submit a statement in writing to the effect that he is implementing the provisions of the Code of Practice.
(5) The Department shall draw up regulations providing such means of enforcing the provisions of this section as it considers appropriate.'.—[Ms. Mowlam.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 4 attempts to point out the inadequacies of the Bill's contract compliance provision. It suggests an alternative concept to that proposed by the Government, who conceive of contract compliance as a last resort to be used as a stick against those employers who deliberately and persistently fail to promote equal opportunity. Our clause involves a carrot approach. Rather than use contract compliance in a punitive way, it enshrines a positive strategy. Employers who promote equality of opportunity would enjoy the advantages of being eligible for contracts and grants. Employers who did not promote it would not. Employers would be required to attain an acceptable minimum standard of fair employment before becoming eligible. Therefore, contract compliance would be used primarily as an instrument to reward good employers, rather than as a last-sanction against persistent discriminators.
That approach was suggested by the Department of Economic Development in its consultative document on fair employment. The Government jettisoned the best feature of that document. The same type of contract compliance was advocated by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, and by the Northern Ireland Congress of Trade Unions. The new clause has two other noteworthy features. First, it extends contract compliance requirements to subcontractors, which is important but notably absent from the Bill. Secondly, it ensures that the same procedures apply both to contracts and Government grants. At present, that is not the case, because clause 39 states that a public authority shall not enter into any contract with unqualified persons unless certain conditions are fulfilled, while discretion to award

contracts to unqualified persons is given in clause 40. The possibility that public authorities will make grants to persistent discriminators is unacceptable.

Mr. Viggers: The scope of new clause 4 is wide and would involve a substantial change to the Bill It is superficially attractive, but I urge the House to resist it on the grounds that it is impracticable and unworkable, and that to incorporate it in the Bill as it has evolved would be difficult. It would also be difficult to enforce.
The mechanism proposed in the Bill for the application of important economic sanctions is straightforward, equitable and effective. It strikes when notice of disqualification has been served by the commission. It has none of the complications of inserting provisions into contracts or of auditing conformity with declarations of statements of intent. New clause 4 would introduce all those unnecessary and cumbersome complications. It requires every contract and subcontract to include all the provisions of the code of practice, and it provides no definition of what is meant by a contract. It applies to contracts regardless of their nature and size, and of the financial amounts involved.
New clause 4 falls back on a mechanism that we tried and found inadequate—the submission of statements of compliance. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) was right in saying that the Department of Economic Development made such a proposal, but we came to the conclusion that that would not be the best way to proceed. The Bill as drafted incorporates a broadly similar mechanism, which is the declaration of principle and intent. We propose moving on to a system that we are sure will be much more effective, which is a clear trigger mechanism based on a notice of disqualification.
The new clause does not set out coherent or considered proposals for enforcing the provisions it makes but proposes instead to delegate that important aspect to departmental regulations. There is no indication of what those regulations might contain. For the practical reasons that I have described, the new clause would not be helpful and I invite the House to resist it. In doing so, I am not rejecting the concept that the hon. Lady presents, but careful consideration of it has prompted us to move on from the basis suggested in her new clause.

Mr. Molyneaux: The clause appears to deal solely with contractors based in Northern Ireland. I have always found it difficult to understand why contract compliance does not exist in Great Britain, where there is a far greater need for it. From time to time there are clamourings for such a provision, but even right hon. and hon. Members who are the representatives of ethnic communities do not seem to be terribly diligent in promoting their constituents' claims and requests in this House.
What will happen under the provisions of new clause 4 if a company based in England decides to tender for a Northern Ireland contract? There are many examples of that happening. Is it required to certify that it is complying already with the terms of the clause? What will happen if such a contractor comes to Northern Ireland and says, "I cannot sign that certificate because the requirement does not exist in law in England where I am based"?
Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether his Department and those responsible for enforcing the legislation will be content with an English contractor promosing that if he obtained the contract he would


comply with the codes of practice and all the regulations. How would that promise be enforced if the contract were awarded and the operation were sealed? At what stage and in what manner would the authorities manage effectively to apply the regulations and make certain that they were watertight?

Rev. William McCrea: I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members feel that the legislation is one-sided. People feel that there is massive discrimination in Northern Ireland by Protestants against Roman Catholics. I shall refer to my constituency of Mid-Ulster. I do not think that the Opposition have shown much consideration or care for people, especially the Protestant community west of the Bann. Will the Minister confirm that sanctions will be applied against Roman Catholic companies in my constituency that have no Protestant employees whatsoever? I note that Opposition Members are nodding approval, but I have never heard any Opposition Member referring to the Protestants west of the Bann who are being discriminated against. It appears that many Government and Opposition Members feel that the legislation will apply east of the Bann to remove Protestants from jobs and to deny them jobs rather than being fair across the community.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the employment of Mr. Cooper lends credence to what he has said? Time and again cases have been drawn to the attention of Mr. Cooper and he has refused to investigate. For example, he would not investigate firms in Londonderry which employed no Protestants whatsoever. How can the people of Northern Ireland have any faith in him and believe that he will have a Damascus road experience—or a Dublin road experience—and say that he will now investigate firms that do not employ people from both sides of the religious divide?

Rev. William McCrea: My hon. Friend has made the next point that I wanted to draw to the attention of the House. My biggest problem is that I have consistently made representations to the Fair Employment Agency about the denial of jobs to my constituents, but the agency would not investigate. Will the Minister assure the House—I should like it on record so that I can refer to it in future—that, whenever a Member of Parliament makes representations and requests investigations into firms west of the Bann, such an investigation will take place?
In my constituency, some firms employ a work force that is 98 per cent. Roman Catholic and 2 per cent. Protestant, yet those firms receive handsome handouts in Government aid. Photographs often appear in the newspapers and they are commended for their excellent employment.
I know that my colleagues from Northern Ireland want fair employment, not favoured employment. We are not denying the right to fair employment. I would fight for fair employment, but it seems that there will be favoured employment and I do not accept that that is a proper concept.
The Minister should take into account the fact that a report by Mr. Cooper of the Fair Employment Agency on employment in local government in Magherafelt found the

Magherafelt district council guilty of discrimination against Roman Catholics. In the past 16 years, the council was under SDLP control for 12 years, and under Unionist control for only four years. It was interesting that Mr. Cooper's report revealed that the only years of fair employment were the four years when I was chairman of the Magherafelt district council. I found that most interesting. I should be glad if the Government and the Opposition would read that report, as it proves that I believe in fair employment and at that time there was fair employment in the Magherafelt district council and throughout the community.
I am concerned that sanctions appear to apply to Protestant firms and people who own companies. It will be most interesting when I refer to the Minister companies in my constituency that are displaying, in the words of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), blatant sectarianism in discriminating against the Protestant community. I hope that the hon. Member for South Down will join me in making representatons for funding to be removed from those firms.

Mr. Viggers: With the leave of the House, I rise only to reassure hon. Members that the legislation we are considering applies equally to Catholics and Protestants. In that sense, it is entirely even-handed. If the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) feels that any case of discrimination is not being pursued and is unable to get satisfaction from the Fair Employment Commission, I hope that he will draw it to my attention and not make allegations in the House which he has not pursued elsewhere. It would be quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to make allegations which were difficult to substantiate if the Government had not been given the opportunity to pursue them. Subject only to those points, I reaffirm that we do not consider that the new clause would be helpful.

Ms. Mowlam: I wish to make one short point to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). If he had read the Standing Committee report in sufficient detail, he would know that hon. Members on both sides of the House gave examples from both sides of the Bann.

Rev. William McCrea: When we referred matters of discrimination to the relevant authorities, it did not work. I have not received an authoritative statement from the body that I was told would look into fair employment. I have requested an investigation into the Department of Health and Social Services, naming the officers and the posts, and after six years I have still to receive an answer from the Fair Employment Agency.

Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman raised two points and I was replying to the first, so his intervention was irrelevant to my remarks. If he has specific complaints, he should take them up with the Government and not with the Opposition.
The hon. Gentleman seems to use the Fair Employment Agency when it suits him—as he did when he referred to Magherafelt council—and then he makes negative comments in the House against Mr. Bob Cooper of the Fair Employment Agency, when Mr. Cooper is unable to reply.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Mowlam: No, I shall not give way, as those points should be addressed by the Minister. I was simply putting it on record that it was out of order for the hon. Gentleman to raise those points in that way.
I understand the difficulties that the Minister has pointed out with regard to the new clause. It is disappointing that he feels unable to include it in the Bill in a more concrete way than saying that he accepts the concept. I hope that the Minister will not divorce theory and practice in regard to other issues. If he accepts the concept of the new clause, I hope that there will be further developments on contract compliance in another place or at a later stage. We are disappointed, but we accept the Minister's points. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION

Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, leave out from `Commission)' to end of line 19 and insert
`after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
(aa) promoting affirmative action:".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 72.

Mr. Viggers: The purpose of Government amendment No. 1 is to give the commission a clear and specific duty to promote affirmative action as well as promoting equality of opportunity and working for the elimination of discrimination. It in no sense changes the remit originally given to the Fair Employment Commission. It merely imposes a clear and specific duty on it to promote affirmative action. For that reason, I hope that Opposition Members and other hon. Members will believe that the amendment is worthwhile.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
'(3) References in the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts to the Commission include, in relation to any time before the commencement of subsection (1) above, references to the Fair Employment Agency for Northern Ireland.'.
We are moving through many amendments. I am happy to clarify any of the Government amendments, but unless I am challenged, I propose to deal with them briefly.
Government amendment No. 2 makes it clear that any reference to the commission in the Act between Royal Assent and the creation of the commission under clause 1(1) should be construed as a reference to the Fair Employment Agency. It is a simple matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

CONSTITUTION OF THE TRIBUNAL

Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 8, after 'exercised', insert
`by a single tribunal or'.

The amendment seeks to remove the unsatisfactory form of words from clause 2(2) and provides a clearer description of the way in which the Fair Employment Tribunal will operate.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

THE PRESIDENT

Mr. Jim Marshall: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'Department' and insert 'Lord Chancellor'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 75, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'Department' and insert 'Lord Chancellor'.
No. 76, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'Department' and insert 'Lord Chancellor'.

Mr. Marshall: I hesitate to slow down the rapid progress we are making on the Bill, but I must address amendment No. 74 and the others in a little more detail than was given to the three previous amendments.
The amendment concerns the person or body who is to appoint the president of the Fair Employment Tribunal. Under the Bill, the president of the Fair Employment Tribunal is to be appointed by the Department of Economic Development. I do not intend to go into a diatribe or a detailed criticism of the history of the Department of Economic Development as this is not the appropriate place or time. The amendment should not be seen as a direct or indirect criticism of the Department of Economic Development.
We seek to remove the power of the Department to appoint the president and to vest that power in the Lord Chancellor. Our reason is to emphasise the independence of the tribunal. As the Minister knows from Committee, we believe that if the president of the Fair Employment Tribunal is seen to be appointed by the Department of Economic Development, it could call into question the independence not only of the president himself, but of the tribunal.
All parties are agreed that it is vital that the tribunal is both seen to be and is in practice impartial and independent of the Government. The Bill shows that the Government themselves partially recognise that problem. Once the president of the tribunal is appointed, he is appointed for life. Once he is appointed, there is no further need to genuflect either to Ministers or to the Department of Economic Development. The Government should go the whole hog and remove any nexus between a Government Department, such as the Department of Economic Development, and the president of the tribunal.
6.45 pm
Before the Minister tells me that that would create a precedent and might create problems for appointments in the future, I must point out to him that there are precedents that support the basis of our amendment. I will highlight two of them. The Lord Chancellor appoints the president of the industrial tribunals for England and Wales. More importantly, the Lord Chancellor also makes appointments to bodies whose remit is within the confines of Northern Ireland Departments. The president of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal for the north of Ireland, for example, is appointed by the Lord Chancellor. There


is support for the amendment from all parties in the Chamber. I urge the Government to accept the amendment.

Mr. Viggers: I must point out to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) that the president of the Fair Employment Tribunal is not appointed for life. He is appointed until the age of 72 and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join with me in wishing Mr. Maguire a long and happy retirement after the age of 72.
I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the appointment would be made better by the Lord Chancellor than by the Department. I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to emphasise the similarities between the functions of the president and those of a judge. There are considerable similarities, but there is one important difference. Industrial tribunals, fair employment and the regulation of employment practices and employment matters generally are transferred matters, which in the event of devolution would be the responsibility of a devolved Administration. We had a similar discussion in Committee when it was suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have direct responsibility for fair employment matters, rather than most of the statutory responsibilities resting with the Department of Economic Developments.

Mr. Molyneaux: That is a vital point. The Minister said that if devolved government were achieved that would be one of the responsibilities of the devolved Government. That is something new and we are encouraged by it. But the Anglo-Irish Agreement does not say that. It says that, in the event of agreement being reached under article 4, certain matters may be devolved, but not the transferred matters. That is an advance and I am grateful for it.

Mr. Viggers: What I have said is clearly understood. I am certainly not enunciating a new principle. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am, perhaps we need to discuss why that should be. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I was enunciating simple and clear principles.
In the event of devolution, it would be inappropriate for the Lord Chancellor to have responsibility in transferred matters. It would be open to a devolved Administration and a devolved assembly to make whatever changes they thought fit in employment law. It would be strange if the Lord Chancellor and a devolved Administration were involved in the same area and it would only cause confusion. I ask the House not to accept the amendment.

Mr. Jim Marshall: As the Minister knows, we discussed these matters in Committee. We put similar arguments and the Minister has given virtually the same replies as he gave in Committee. Perhaps we are at a stand-off. Before gracefully withdrawing the amendment—[Interruption.] We will continue to make our point in another place and in this House again, if the Bill returns amended from the House of Lords. We seek to emphasise the absolute independence of the tribunal both from Government Ministers and from specific Government Departments, such as the Department of Economic Development, in the north of Ireland. A method of doing that has still to be found.
We regret very much that the Government are not prepared to accept the Lord Chancellor instead of the Department in that role, but perhaps the Minister will reconsider the problem. When the issue is raised in another place, perhaps the Minister who replies there on behalf of the Government could respond to this point as sympathetically as the Minister has just done. Perhaps with a little more understanding and co-operation we could seek to bring about the change that we desire. I shall withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Beggs: I raised this matter in Committee and was grateful for the support that was given to me then. I should be opposed to the amendment being withdrawn.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It would be more helpful if the House knew about the deals between the two Front Benches and if we knew which amendments were to be withdrawn and which put up for barter because what we are doing now is a charade. We shall press the amendments for all the reasons that were given by the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen who have appealed to hon. Members from Northern Ireland. We realise that there is reason, but I should have thought that it would be far better if the Lord Chancellor made the appointment because that would remove this issue from politics and from a Government Department. The appointment would then be removed from a Government Department and from accusations of Government patronage. I should have thought that that would be a good way to proceed. The Opposition should hold on to their amendment and seek to divide the House.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I should like to make two points in response to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I must emphasise to the reverend gentleman that there is no agreement in terms of timetabling the remaining stages of the Bill—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) seems to find this amusing.

Rev. William McCrea: I certainly do.

Mr. Marshall: Of course, and I understand the reasons. His ignorance of this matter was obvious in our previous discussions. If he had had discussions with his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) he would know that this matter was discussed fully in Committee and that we were heavily defeated.
That brings me to my second point, which is a political point. If we were to seek to press the amendment to a Division now and if we were to suffer a heavy defeat of around 170 votes to 15 or 20, it would hardly enhance our ability to ensure that a change was achieved in the Bill in the other place. For that and other reasons. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 101.

Division No. 217]
[6.52 pm


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Haynes, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Ingram, Adam


Bermingham, Gerald
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Boateng, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Michael, Alun


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James






Mowlam, Marjorie
Skinner, Dennis


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pike, Peter L.



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. William Ross and


Ruddock, Joan
Rev. William McCrea.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Amess, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Amos, Alan
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Arbuthnot, James
Hunter, Andrew


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Jack, Michael


Atkinson, David
Janman, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Beith, A. J.
Kirkwood, Archy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knapman, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Boswell, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bright, Graham
Lord, Michael


Burns, Simon
McCrindle, Robert


Butterfill, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Maclean, David


Carrington, Matthew
Mans, Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Chope, Christopher
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Paice, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Cran, James
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Curry, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Devlin, Tim
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Dover, Den
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Durant, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Favell, Tony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Forman, Nigel
Summerson, Hugo


Forth, Eric
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Freeman, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Gow, Ian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Thorne, Neil


Gregory, Conal
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Viggers, Peter


Ground, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hague, William
Walden, George


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Waller, Gary


Hanley, Jeremy
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Harris, David
Wells, Bowen


Hayward, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Wood, Timothy


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)



Hill, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Mr. J. M. Taylor.


Howells, Geraint

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 32, leave out from 'provide' to end of line 38 and insert
'for specified functions of the President (including functions under sections 6 and 17 of this Act) to be exercised in specified circumstances by a person appointed, in accordance with the regulations, to a panel of chairmen'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 4

REMUNERATION AND ALLOWANCES

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 3, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 2.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 5

TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE

Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 28, leave out paragraph (j).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 7.

Mr. Viggers: The amendment honours a promise that I made to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) in Committee. It had always been our intention that the Fair Employment Tribunal would be expected to announce reasons for its decisions. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it should be specifically made a burden and responsibility for the tribunal. We are happy to include that in the Bill.

Mr. Jim Marshall: It is not my intention to delay the House. I thank the Minister for tabling the amendments. We are grateful that the guarantee that he gave in Committee has been translated into amendments.

Mr. Ashdown: I have no wish to detain the House either, but I should be grateful for a word from the Minister. Perhaps this is the appropriate time to ask a question. The Minister will recall that, when the Government published the White Paper, they said that people of standing in the community would be on the tribunal. I note that that has not been carried forward specifically into the Bill. A word of reassurance from the Minister might be helpful.

Mr. William Ross: These are interesting amendments. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. He told the House that he was fulfilling a promise made in Committee, but that it was always the intention of the Government that reasons would be given by the tribunal. The Minister was extremely brief. When the tribunal is giving its reasons, I hope that it will not be as brief.
Reasons could be given in one sentence, or they could take up half a book. On many occasions, brief explanations will suffice, but on many other occasions a fuller explanation will be needed. No doubt there will be cases under the legislation where the tribunal has to pass judgment. I hope that it will give a full explanation. That is not spelt out on the face of the Government amendments. Perhaps the Minister will go further and will open the door for a more expansive amendment to be moved in another place, specifying the sort of information that will be given, how full the explanation of the various reasons will be, what factors have been taken into account and whether the tribunal will be guided only by the evidence given to it or whether it will carry out further investigations which may change its opinion.
In Northern Ireland, many rumours fly about. We would not want decisions to be taken on unsubstantiated allegations. When the tribunal is giving reasons, they should be soundly based in law and should be sufficiently detailed for everyone to understand why the tribunal reached its decision. We will not be put off by a bit of jiggery-pokery in the corner. We want the background to be explained and the tribunal to make it clear why it has come to a particular conclusion on each item.
If tribunal members are divided in their opinion, the tribunal should have a duty to provide for minority reports


so that the dissenting voice may be heard. This is a small amendment, but the Minister has treated it too lightly, as have Her Majesty's Opposition. If the amendment is tossed in out of the blue to meet a commitment, surely the Minister should give more than two sentences of explanation. We want a full explanation of what sort of written reasons will be provided for the public to assess and to take into account when the next case is coming before the tribunal.

Mr. Viggers: It is important that there should be broad public confidence in the tribunal and the justice it provides. In setting out its reasons, the tribunal will provide a body of coherent and consistent case law which will build up and be available to employers and employees alike to work upon so that they may understand the workings of the tribunal.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked about representation on the tribunal. We will seek broad representation from both employers and unions. I reaffirm that we will seek people of substance to sit on the tribunal.

Rev. William McCrea: As the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, there is concern in the hearts and minds of people in the Province. In the past, many tribunals were appointed by the Government, and they usually had one political affiliation—the Alliance. It would be in the interests of the right hon. Member for Yeovil to ensure that matters continue in that way, because of his close association with that party. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that there will be wide political representation on the tribunal. If not, there will be favoured representation, as has happened in the past. I hope that the right hon. Member for Yeovil will associate himself with my remarks, because he would not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will not press the matter any further. It is clearly outside the scope of the amendment.

Rev. William McCrea: Your remark is interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was the substance of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Yeovil, and he was not called to order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) is quite right; I was not quick enough. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman is saying should a similar occurrence arise again.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
'(2A) The Tribunal shall give reasons for its decisions.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in, page 4, line 30, leave out from 'above' to end of line 36 and insert—

'(a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and
(b) if without reasonble excuse the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 19, 21, 73, 37 to 41, 46 to 50 and 52 to 56.

Mr. Viggers: The amendment introduces a new mechanism whereby any incremental fine will apply only from the date on which an employer is convicted of an offence rather than the date of the offence itself. We believe that to be fair.

Mr. Jim Marshall: This is one occasion on which I join other hon. Members who wish that the Minister had spoken at greater length and in greater detail. If he had done so, I could have related my comments more closely to what he said.
Contrary to the other Government amendments that have been passed, which, on the whole, we have supported, we regret that the Government have sought to introduce this series of amendments, which substantially weaken the Bill. I do not recall any hon. Member asking for such amendments at any stage of our proceedings. Why were the amendments put down, and from what quarter did the request come?
7.15 pm
An employer who fails to provide a monitoring return is subject to a per diem fine until he or she meets the requirements of the legislation. Government amendment No. 8 would restrict the per diem fines until after second conviction. That is a retrograde step, as the amendment would remove the immediate incentive for an employer who has committed an offence to comply with the law. If there is a breach of the legislation, employers should quickly compy with any demands placed upon them. The amendment would weaken that aspect of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister recognises that it will inevitably offer the opportunity for some employers to prevaricate, and also place a greater burden on enforcement bodies.
We ask the Government to think again. It will surprise the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) that, contrary to their belief that there is bipartisan agreement, it is our intention to oppose Government amendment No. 8.

Mr. William Ross: This is an important series of amendments, and it must be explored at some length. If we are to support the amendment, it should state rather more than the bland
not exceeding one tenth of level 5".
Will the Minister be kind enough to translate that into pounds, shillings and pence—that reveals my age—so that we know what we are talking about?
A firm going to Northern Ireland may transgress the law for any one of a hundred reasons, possibly as a result of ignorance of the demographic and religious spread of the population. That firm could find itself guilty of—

Mr. Beggs: Bankrupt.

Mr. Ross: As the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) said, it could find itself bankrupt. The hon. Gentleman jumped the gun.
We are trying to attract firms of all sizes to invest in all sorts of matters. People go along to the Industrial Development Board and they are given glossy promotional material, and are told of all the help that will be available. I wonder whether the complications that could arise from the legislation are sufficiently spelt out for


incoming investors. Are officers in Government Departments in the I DB presently engaged in rewriting the glossy brochures? If not, it is about time someone started the job. In the interest of fairness, people should be informed not only of grants and help for firms investing in Northern Ireland, but of the pitfalls created by the Bill. They should be told exactly what position they will find themselves in.
Suppose a small firm decides to set up a branch in Northern Ireland to do a vital part of its manufacturing process or to distribute its products in Northern Ireland, and it has nine employees of one religious denomination. The word "denomination" is incorrect. We are not talking about denominations; we are talking about one denomination—the Roman Catholic denomination. All the others are lumped together. A few are labelled "others". Presumably they would be of non-Christian extraction or non-practising Christians. If one who is born in Northern Ireland becomes an atheist, agnostic, Hindu or whatever, it is of no matter. Under the Bill, if one is born a Prod, one will remain a Prod until the day one dies. It is no good saying that one has changed one's religion. That will not wash. One will be labelled a Prod for the rest of one's days. There are children in my children's primary classes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I see nothing in the amendments that has anything remotely to do with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We are discussing fines.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are a little too quick off the mark. We are discussing the consequences of the legislation. I am talking about a firm setting up a branch in Northern Ireland and employing 10 people. A week later it finds to its horror that nine of the 10 are adherents of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). The firm, having employed those people in good faith, finds that, out of ignorance, it has transgressed the law.
Much of the problem is due to the fact that we are not told what location is taken into account when the case reaches the tribunal or the Fair Employment Agency. It seems that geographical area will be established at the time of those proceedings. Contractors come to Ireland from England and hire workers from all over the place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see what that has to do with the terms of the amendment, which is concerned with levels of fines. I hope that the hon. Member will address his remarks to the terms of the amendment.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply trying to protect investors in Northern Ireland from being fined.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will have to do that on a suitable later amendment. He cannot do it on the one that is now before the House.

Mr. Ross: I am giving the Minister notice that, when people come to Northern Ireland to invest, they must be helped to avoid committing the offences of which we are speaking. The Minister will have to give them careful advice, drawing their attention to the consequences of this legislation. That must be done before they get a foot through the door. They, or those employing people on their behalf, could find themselves in prison or be fined

"not exceeding level 5". I do not know whether the courts, in taking account of the circumstances, would impose a fine not exceeding level 1.
Firms coming in, before employing people, should be given a sort of health warning—a bank account protection warning—and perhaps the Minister will give an assurance that such a warning will be placed on all relevant literature. People must be made aware that, if their work force is out of balance, they will be fined or pursued by one section of the community or another.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The amendment contains the phrase "if without reasonable excuse", which I should have thought related to the argument that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) adduced. Some hon. Members think that all jobs in Northern Ireland are open to all classes of the community. The roofing industry in Belfast has been in the hands of Roman Catholics for years. Is the House saying that in future those engaged in roofing must sack a certain number of Roman Catholics and employ a certain number of Protestants? [Interruption.] I have carefully read the Official Report of the Committee proceedings. For example, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) pointed out at that stage that not all things were equal because of the geographical structure and because certain types of employment were in the hands of certain religious people. In the old days in the shipyards—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going very wide of the amendment. I hope that he will address his remarks to the level of fines as mentioned in the amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I draw your attention, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that we are talking about people having a reasonable excuse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is using the phrase "without reasonable excuse" to apply to matters which are not the subject of the series of amendments before the House. The "reasonable excuse" provisions relate to specific matters, of which he is going wide. I hope that he will now address his remarks to the terms of the amendment and not to matters outside it to which the phrase "reasonable excuse" might apply.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Employers coming into Northern Ireland and breaching this law will be fined. It is reasonable not to proceed against such people immediately but to give them an opportunity to try to rectify the situation. Is it being suggested that firms coming to Northern Ireland will not be told anything about the fair employment laws applying there? Will they simply be told, "Go ahead and recruit your labour"?
The Government have a duty to ensure that every prospective investor knows what he is up against so that he can make his decision on that basis. If people breach the legislation, they should be given an opportunity to put matters right. They should not be proceeded against immediately.
That is what the amendment is about, and I am sorry to find myself on the side of the Government. I do not like to be on their side. This is reasonable because I want o see more employment in Northern Ireland. We do not have enough jobs. If we were overflowing with employment we would not need this legislation. The fact that there is a lack of jobs makes it necessary. The more jobs the better, and


if employers come and put money into Northern Ireland, the Government must not act in a dictatorial manner against them. They should be given an opportunity to rectify what has gone wrong.

Mr. Molyneaux: I support the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) because he and I in our respective parties play a modest part in persuading investors and companies to come to Northern Ireland, in my case from this side of the water and in his case from across the Atlantic. We would have it on our consciences if we brought them into a trap without prior warning.
That is why the Minister must provide what my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) called a health warning—I would call it an early warning—to alert them in clear and unambiguous language to the difficulties that they could face. That will enable them to take advice and decide, on commercial grounds, whether they can comply with the legislation. If they cannot comply with it, we will all be disappointed, but at least we will not feel that, through negligence, we have persuaded people, for the best of reasons, to walk into a trap that they had not foreseen.

Mr. Viggers: I was brief in moving the amendment. Perhaps with some further explanation I will be able to persuade the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and his hon. Friends not to vote against the amendment; it is a reasonable amendment.
The intention behind the amendments is to make provision for imposing on a defaulting emloyer an incremental fine for each day in which he fails to discharge the offence of which he has been convicted, and "convicted" is an important word in this context.
A similar provision was included in the Bill at the appropriate places, but on carefully considering the matter, we in the Department decided that, in the interests of natural justice, the basic mechanism which had been provided was unfair. The general formula that we were using was on the lines set out in clause 35(8), where the incremental fine was applied for each day of noncompliance following the date stipulated by the commission in a notice of requirement—not a conviction, but a stipulation by the commission in a notice of requirement.
In practical terms, therefore, an employer who failed to comply by the specified date and who, in the genuine belief that he had a reasonable excuse for his failure, wished to plead the defence provided by clause 35(9) could, if unsuccessful in that defence, find himself confronted with a large, even a massive, incremental fine the size of which owed more to the timing and duration of court proceedings than to the seriousness of the original offence.
We are saying that interest should follow a conviction, and not the date stipulated by the commission. Mention was made of a "second conviction". There will be only one conviction. A date will be stipulated by the commission in the notice of requirement, but the matter will not appear before the court and will not be adjudged by a court until it comes up following an appeal against a notice by the commission.
I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, South will feel that it is right that interest should follow the date of a conviction in a court and that an individual employer

should not be penalised from a date stipulated by the commission. There could be genuine reasons for a delay between a date stipulated by the commission and a notice of requirement.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has referred to paragraph (b) in amendment No. 8, which says:
if without reasonable excuse the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine".
Are we talking about conviction on two separate failures or is it two convictions in the same case, where the person has been convicted once, he has failed to comply and is convicted again on the same case?

Mr. Viggers: There are, of course, two completely different sets of circumstances. There is the employer who has not been stated to be in default by the commission and who is before the courts for the first time, and an employer who has had a previous conviction. The employer who, following a conviction by the magistrates court, wilfully remains in default of his obligations will be liable to further proceedings in the magistrates court and, if convicted, will be penalised by the total of the daily fines which have occurred since the date of the original conviction.
Further failures in compliance will be penalised in the same way by subsequent convictions until the employer finally discharges the offence. That mechanism is similar to that which applies to offences under companies legislation. It appears to be both consistent and appropriate to extend it to the offences created by the Bill. In this case, we have modelled ourselves on the similar legislation applying to companies, where the firms concerned could have substantial funds and it is necessary to have a substantial prospective fine available to ensure that companies comply with the law.
On the matter of the first set of circumstances, we do not think it right that an employer, who has not at this stage been convicted, should be at penalty to a daily fine following the date stipulated by the commission in the notice of requirement. I hope that I have made that point clear. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, South accepts that it is reasonable that we should regard individuals who have not been held guilty by a court as not being subject to daily penalties.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) asked about the level 5 fine, which is currently £2,000, with a maximum fine per diem of £200. We are therefore talking about quite substantial amounts.
Hon. Members have raised the question whether we advise prospective incoming investors about the fair employment legislation. I can tell them that we are scrupulous in doing so.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The Minister said that he thought that he had made the position clear. I am sure that he has made it clear, but it is unfortunate that it is not clear to me. Perhaps my position would be better if I could say that I would consider the Minister's remarks and come back to him at a further stage. However, obviously that is inappropriate on Report.
We indicated that, if a Division was called, we would vote against the Government amendment. However, in view of the Minister's response, I would say that it is not our intention to divide on the amendment, but we intend


to consider the Minister's reply very carefully and, if necessary and possible, to pursue our argument in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 4, line 43, leave out 'the reasons for the decision' and insert 'for communicating the reasons for the decision to any person to whom the Tribunal is required by the regulations to communicate them.'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 6

COMPLAINTS INVOLVING MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 5, line 19 leave out from 'matters' to end of line 22 and insert
'which would otherwise fall to be determined by an industrial tribunal could appropriately be heard and determined by the Tribunal, he may direct that those matters shall be so heard and determined'.— [Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 7

CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 5, line 37, leave out 'the promotion of and insert 'promoting'.
No. 12, in page 5, line 43, leave out 'Fair Employment'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 13

VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 9, line 11, leave out 'the promotion of' and insert 'promoting'.
No. 14, in page 9, line 25, at end insert—
'(5) Subsection (3) above does not apply in relation to an undertaking given by any of the authorities specified in subsection (1) of section 54 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, but where an undertaking given under this section by such an authority is not complied with the Commission shall send a report of the circumstances of the failure to comply with it to the person to whom a report under subsection (2) of that section following an investigation relating to the authority would be sent.'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 16

ORDER OF TRIBUNAL TO ENFORCE UNDERTAKING OR DIRECTIONS

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 11, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 and insert
'An application for the enforcement of directions shall not be made'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 17

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER OF TRIBUNAL

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 12, line 42, at end insert—
'(5A) If it appears to the Department that there has been a change in the value of money since the relevant date, it may by order substitute for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (3)(b) above such other sum as appears to it to be justified by the change.
(5B) In subsection (5A) above 'the relevant date' means—

(a) in relation to the first order under that subsection, the commencement of this section, and

(b) in relation to each subsequent order, the last occasion when the sum specified in subsection (3)(b) above was altered.'.— [Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 21

INTERPRETATION OF PART I

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 15, line 42, leave out 'its promotion by means of'
and insert 'the promotion of'.
No. 18, in page 15, line 43, leave out 'the promotion of' and insert 'promoting'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 23

EMPLOYERS TO APPLY FOR REGISTRATION

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 16, line 43, leave out from 'above' to end of line 48 and insert—


'(a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and
(b) if the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.

No. 20, in page 17, line 18, leave out '34' and insert '35'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 24

RECTIFICATION OF THE REGISTER

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 17, line 27, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 31 and insert—
'(2A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) above—

(a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and
(b) if the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.

No. 22, in page 17, line 40, leave out '34' and insert '35'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 26

CERTAIN PUBLIC AUTHORITIES TO BE TREATED AS EMPLOYERS

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 18, line 34, leave out '34' and insert '35'.—[Mr.Viggers.]

Clause 27

MONITORING RETURNS

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 19, line 20, leave out 'in respect of that year'.
No. 25, in page 19, line 28, leave out '34' and insert '35'.
No. 26, in page 19, line 33, leave out
'in respect of any year'.
No. 73, in page 19, line 37, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 42 and insert—
'(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) above—

(a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and
(b) if the failure to submit the monitoring return continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not


exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 28

REGULATIONS AS TO MONITORING

Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 20, line 23, after 'regulations', insert
`made after consultation with the Commission'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 28 to 30.

Mr. Viggers: These four amendments all relate to different aspects of monitoring. In brief, amendment No. 27 fulfils a Committee stage undertaking to require the Department to consult the commission before making the monitoring regulations. Amendment No. 28 reflects a technical difference in the period of time to which monitoring returns dealing with employees and applicants relate. Amendment No. 29 allows the regulations flexibility to provide for different modes of monitoring classifications for different categories of employees. Amendment No. 30 provides that regulations may contain a requirement for an employer to use methods of monitoring other than the indirect "schools" question or the direct question.
It is appropriate to give a few words of explanation on this group of amendments, especially amendment No. 30 which makes specific provision for an employer, when compiling a monitoring return, to use such sources of information as will enable him to compile a return with the greatest degree of accuracy. As drafted, clause 28 makes no reference as to how monitoring is to be conducted, or the sources which should be used. As was explained in the Department's "Guide to Effective Practice", and confirmed in the fair employment White Paper, the Government's preferred method was for employers to use an indirect method of obtaining information about a person's community background for purposes of monitoring. The advantages of using information about the schools attended by each employee were put forward in that connection. I need not rehearse again the benefits of this method in terms of making available to an employer a broad source of objective and verifiable information, but the Government's confidence in this method is undiminished.
Nonetheless, it was also recognised that an employer might wish to use a direct approach to establishing community background, or might wish to have recourse to any other method which appeared appropriate and justifiable in the circumstances. The important consideration was to produce a monitoring return in whose accuracy he could have a high degree of confidence. For that reason, the Bill specified the objective of monitoring, but not the methodology to be used.
Concerns were expressed in Committee, however, that the Bill did not make specific provision in this regard. To set the matter beyond doubt, therefore, we are bringing forward amendment No. 30 which does three things. It creates two classes of method—principal and residuary. It provides for a certain relationship between them, that is that the employer shall first use one of the two principal methods, and, if that does not lead to a determination, may use either the other principal method or a residuary

method; and it gives, as it were, a worked example of how the regulations may set out principal and residuary methods. The amendment thus meets the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that it is essential for an employer to be able to use a back-up method to supplement the classifications arrived at by the principal method.
This is an important point and one on which I am happy to meet the Opposition's concerns. In the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, factual information such as home address, membership of clubs or societies, the name and occupation of any referee used in connection with an application for employment and even sporting pursuits may all provide very strong inferential evidence as to the community background of an individual. Amendment No. 30 makes specific provision for such information—now referred to as "the residuary method"—to be taken into account in the compiling of monitoring returns. This is a complicated matter, but I hope that I have set the scene for the discussion of the amendment.
The Opposition have raised some concern about the draft of the amendment tabled on residuary monitoring. In brief, their concern is that it is not clear from the wording whether an employer who obtains misleading information from his work force about the extent to which they are Catholics or Protestants through the use of the direct question will be able to fall back on the residuary methodology to provide a more accurate monitoring return. In fact, the amendment does not allow for this. While the residuary method may be used where the work force provide a response to the direct question which suggests that they are "Christian", "Moslem" or "Other", this is not possible where they falsely declare themselves to be either Protestant or Catholic. In the former case, the information provided does not allow the employer to make an adequate determination and he may therefore fall back on either the indirect question or a residuary method to fulfil his obligation to make a monitoring return. In the latter case, however, he can only make assumptions about the accuracy of the attribution of "Catholic" or "Protestant" thrown up by the responses from the work force and he does have a "determination" as required by the legislation. It would be extremely difficult to provide in the Bill for the exercise of judgment by the employer as to when he might utilise the residuary method in such circumstances.
We do, therefore, recognise that the Opposition have a point and we believe that it might be addressed by providing for the commission to investigate dubious returns and to substitute their assessment for the return if the doubt is confirmed. The code of practice, moreover, might encourage employers who have doubts about the accuracy of their returns to bring these to the attention of the Commission.
This is a difficult issue and we are conscious of the need to ensure that monitoring returns are as accurate as possible. Therefore, consideration is being given to the matter and, if appropriate, an amendment will be brought forward in the other place.

Mr. McNamara: I am obliged to the Minister for the amendment and for his comments on residual monitoring, which was a matter of concern to us. As I understand it, it was originally hoped that the regulations would deal with the monitoring, but it was always possible that the regulations would be ruled ultra vires. Therefore, I am


extremely grateful to the Minister that we can put this matter behind us as we now have adequate monitoring provisions. We will also have suitable methods to ensure that there can be no dubiety about the returns made.
Until amendments were tabled, the original system placed an intolerable burden on the employer. An employer was compelled to make a return, but he might have done so knowing that it was false, but to make a false return also carried a penalty. Therefore, he was in a Catch 22 situation. I believe that we have now properly sought to protect the position of the employer in such cases, and that is important.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) moved an amendment to ensure that the commission was also concerned about the nature and the draft of the regulations, and we supported that amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down may wish to make his own contribution, but I want to say that I am obliged to the Government for what they have done.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman keeps on referring to his "hon. Friend the Member for South Down". It would be relevant to our discussions if the hon. Gentleman told us whether he considers the hon. Member for South Down his hon. Friend on religious grounds, Irish nationalist grounds, or Socialist grounds.

Mr. McNamara: I would hope on all three grounds. I also welcome him as my hon. Friend on the ground of being humankind. I would like to think that all people are my friends and my brothers and sisters. I was merely illustrating that my hon. Friend the Member for South Down moved an amendment with which I agreed. On occasions the Government have moved amendments with which I agreed, but other than being brothers in kind I certainly do not believe that they are members of the Socialist International and, therefore, my brothers. There were occasions this afternoon, however, when the Secretary of State was answering questions on the Anglo-Irish Agreement and I thought that I had almost recruited the right hon. Gentleman to that group.

Mr. McGrady: I should like to record my thanks to the Minister for honouring his promise to consult with the commission when drawing up the rules and regulations for the code of conduct.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister will be aware that we expressed on Second Reading some concern about monitoring. I am delighted that the Government have taken account of those concerns and, in what is clearly a thoughtful conclusion to those deliberations, have produced something with which it would be difficult to disagree.
The Minister has said that he believes that the system proposed in amendment No. 30 will be accurate and fair, but it is also important to make it flexible. There is no doubt that other developments will take place in Northern Ireland and with, I hope, the development of integrated schools, the school attended by the prospective employee will not necessarily be a guide to his or her religious background. It is commendable that the Government have done much to encourage the development of such schools,

but as that system grows apace, judging people's religious background on the basis of the school attended may no longer be appropriate.
I hope that the Government will keep a close eye on the monitoring so that they will be able to fine-tune it to respond to the new developments which we hope to see. How will such monitoring affect those who come from the growing number of integrated schools in Northern Ireland?

Mr. William Ross: The working people of Northern Ireland have described this system to me as the most offensive demand that has ever been put on them by an employer. If the Ministers of the Northern Ireland Office or the would-be Ministers on the Opposition Front Bench do not believe me, they should talk to the ordinary worker on the factory floor or any other employee in Northern Ireland and ask them what they think about the snooping into their private religious lives. Those workers will tell them that they consider it extremely offensive, as each and every Member of this House would so consider it if they were in a similar position. The Government appear more than willing to ignore the workers' feelings.
We are now being told that if an employer cannot easily find out to which religious grouping—it is either Roman Catholic or "Other"—an employee belongs, he must then make careful private inquiries as to what church he attends or what he attended as a child or was baptised in. Presumably employers will not be allowed to inquire whether the individual is still a practising member of the faith. In Great Britain, church-going is not as popular as it once was. Church attendance and the level of commitment to any Christian church in Northern Ireland vary enormously from area to area. I suspect that that intensity of commitment is not equal in any religious denomination.
There are many people in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, who grow up and leave their church to become agnostics or atheists, non-believers, or become members of other religions, pagan religions, but for all their life they will be labelled nice and neatly Protestant or Roman Catholic. That label will be attached to them whether or not they still adhere to that religion, whether or not they practise that religion and whether or not they change their religion. It is very offensive to me and, as I have already said, it is very offensive to most of the work force of whatever religion in Northern Ireland.
There is a demand which runs like a river right through this legislation that the perception of the religious grouping to which an individual belongs shall be the label that is attached to that individual. I want merely to say to the House—not that it will do any good—that that label is permanent and is not necessarily accurate. In this as in so many other matters, the reality may be different from the public perception.
It is easy where I live, in a mixed rural community, for me to identify the religious denomination to which many people belong. I do not have to ask. I know where they live, and I know their fathers, their grandfathers and their children. Some of those people have names which make them look as if they should be Irish Roman Catholics but they turn out to be Anglican Catholics. They have names which might well indicate, since they are English, Scottish or Welsh names, that they should belong to one of the many Protestant denominations. But they do not because their forefathers come to Ireland—[Interruption.] Would


my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev William McCrea) agree with me that one would hardly believe that someone with the name Adams was the leader of the Provisional IRA? The same, of course, is true of McGuinness. Morrison is clearly a Northern Irish name.

Rev. William McCrea: Or Ashdown

Mr. Ross: Yes, and no doubt there are Ashdowns there yet—and I hope they have better politics than the right hon. Member for Yeovil. This is a nasty, double-sided piece of legislation. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he has forgotten far too much about Northern Ireland and should go back to his roots and make some inquiries of those who still live there.
We are about to move fully and firmly into the process of head-counting by perception of religious denomination, of enforcing an arrangement on the basis of some unknown criteria as to what the work force distribution between those religions should be in every place of employment in Northern Ireland. We shall be labelling people with a religion which they may have deserted or may no longer practise. We shall be labelling people by politics, which they may have changed. We talk here of community, not religion, but the reality is that we are talking about the religious adherence, or the perception of the religious adherence, of each worker.
One of the methods to be used to try to determine the religion is based on sporting affiliations. I find that strange because I know that the Gaelic Athletic Association, for instance, labels soccer a foreign game. I do not think that opinion is widely shared among the community which normally plays GAA games, where one sees many young Roman Catholics play soccer. It is probably the favourite sporting recreation in Northern Ireland, as it is elsewhere in these islands.

Rev. William McCrea: But they behave themselves.

Mr. Ross: . I think their behaviour in international matches on that side of the water is of a standard which many football clubs over here could aim for but which few of them achieve.
Sport is supposed to be a healing function, something that draws a community together into one great, happy group. Here we are proposing to find out that somebody plays soccer so he is a Prod from the Shankill or he would not play soccer.

Rev. William McCrea: Or a Prod from the Bogside.

Mr. Ross: He could very well be; they have a very successful team in Londonderry at the moment. He could even be from South Armagh; he could be from any place in Northern Ireland, and he could be of any religion or of none.
I fail to see how any sane person or group of persons could be so misled as to present this legislation as being healing or helpful. It is exactly the opposite, and the fact that the Government have chosen to introduce it only illustrates how vast is the canyon between their perception and the reality of life in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Viggers: Three specific points have been raised during this short debate.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked whether the monitoring arrangements would be

flexible. Detailed arrangements for monitoring will be made by regulations and will be capable of amendment in the light of experience.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about integrated schools. Integrated schools are not classified as either Catholic or Protestant in the guide. If, as he suggests and indicates that he hopes—as I do—there are larger numbers of integrated schools in the future, account will be taken of that and it will have a significant effect on the monitoring in due course.

Mr. Beggs: One factor that has never been stressed and made absolutely clear is the degree of integration that has already taken place in voluntary grammar schools. Many pupils in voluntary grammar schools throughout the country could be mislabelled. That must be made clear and corrected, if possible.

Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) criticised the monitoring regime very well, but it is not difficult to criticise arrangements such as those we put forward because it is not easy to create a formula that is conducive to an improvement in the relationships between Protestants and Roman Catholics as far as job opportunities in Northern Ireland are concerned. But I have the opportunity of moving around Northern Ireland a great deal and talking to a large number of employers and employee representatives and, although there are many who are apprehensive and concerned about our proposals, the best employers regard the proposals in the Bill as totally containable within good personnel practice. They see no difficulty in implementing the monitoring regime. Many of them have done so already and they can live with it. I congratulate them and am sure that many will follow them.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We are dealing with a matter of great seriousness—the investigation of a person's religious beliefs and the attempt to put a person into a particular category. There has been a degree of deception already by employers in producing a document with at the head of it, "as approved by the Fair Employment Agency" and in the demand in that document that one fills in one's religion. The Minister knows that under European law no Government have any right to say that a person must tell them his religion, so we have in this amendment a way round that. The way to breach it is to try to find a way to assess a person's religion.
The Minister put out a booklet which was widely circulated and in which Roman Catholic schools appeared as Protestant state schools. What would happen if an employer looked at that booklet and said, "He belongs to that school, he must be a Protestant," but the pupil was a Roman Catholic? There are Roman Catholic schools within the state system. That booklet is still being used by employers in Northern Ireland.
8 pm
The leader of the Democrats had better know that it will be a long time before the vast majority of children have been educated in integrated schools. The Roman Catholic Church has its own view on that, as it is entitled to do. It wants its children to be brought up in that faith. My view is different. I believe that if the Government were acting properly, they would say that it was all right for anyone to run his own school, but he must pay for it, and


that the one state school would be an integrated one, at which anyone was welcome. Of course, there are divisions about that in Northern Ireland. This Government, or any Government, would not have the guts to take such a decision, and, therefore, we must leave that issue.
We are entering a different realm—not involving schooling—in which someone is to snoop around to find out what a man does after he goes home and has his supper, what club he goes to and in what recreation he engages. Who is going to do that? Will employers have to employ a sort of private detective to ascertain the religion of their employees? In Northern Ireland, nothing will lead to friction on the work floor more quickly than such a policy, which would not be tolerated on this side of the water. If such legislation were being introduced on this side of the water, what uproar we would have from both sides of the House. However, hon. Members are now saying that the employer must go further.
What about the employer who does his very best, carries out all his duties, but, at the end, is deceived? An employer might put down a number of workers as Protestant when they were Roman Catholic, or as Roman Catholic when they were Protestant. What happens then? Will he be liable for that? That is the question that the Minister should answer tonight. If the employer gets it wrong, having done everything to get it right, will he be penalised? That is an important point, which, in all fairness the Minister should answer. It is difficult to distinguish by names.
What are the quotas for people who do not term themselves Roman Catholic or Protestant? Are they to be left out in the cold? Where do they fit in to this scheme of employment if they are outside the Protestant or Roman Catholic grouping? The Minister must tell us how the difficulties are to be counteracted.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman is skirting around the edge of another problem involving the wide diversity of opinion that exists in the Protestant community. How does the hon. Gentleman feel about being lumped in with the Feakle clergy, and as being within the same large Protestant group?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman knows my attitude on that point.
If the Government get it wrong by giving out literature which says that Protestant schools are Roman Catholic and that Roman Catholic schools are Protestant, what will happen to the poor employer who goes by those guidelines? The Government will wash their hands clean and take it out on the employer. Those matters are relatively unimportant to the Minister, who merely wipes his hands and gives us a brief answer. However, we will have to reap the results of the legislation.

Mr. Beggs: There is very real concern in work places in Northern Ireland that, for the first time, sectarianism has been directly introduced in the workplace. The Minister could testify to the excellent working relationships in industry and commerce that have existed during the 20 years of troubles in Northern Ireland. He could testify to the fact that irrespective of their religion, or from which part of the Province they travel to work, people have got on amicably; goods have been delivered on time and there have been good relations all round.
Regrettably, there is now a danger that, with such close monitoring, individuals will start head counting and

looking closely at promotions and how they are taking place. The irony is that, because of the legislation. one Minister will be seen to be guilty of introducing sectarianism, while his colleague endeavours to promote daily the expansion and further development of integrated education.
For the sake of all employers in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Minister will recognise that both the Confederation of British Industry in Northern Ireland and the Retail Consortium, representing many employers in Northern Ireland, are not opposed to the fair employment legislation or the Bill's overall objective. However, they have concerns about monitoring. The Retail Consortium has said that it wants the Fair Employment Commission, which is to be established by the Bill, to play a constructive and understanding role in co-operating with, and assisting, employers to meet their monitoring obligations. It also states:
Moreover, it must produce guidelines that are fair not only to job applicants, but also fair to employers. The agency should, therefore, seek to achieve a balance between the circumstances of the job applicant and the needs of the reasonable fair-minded employer. The benefits enjoyed through an enterprise economy are too valuable to he risked by unclear or unreasonable obligations upon employers, and if this was to happen it would be all the community in Northern Ireland that would suffer.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say that further consideration has been given to representations made by the CBI in Northern Ireland which wants the Bill to make it the commission's duty to monitor the labour market as a whole, not simply employers. Can the Minister say what steps will be taken by the commission to give employers confidence by ensuring that its own employees act professionally at all times, the leaking of confidential information will be prevented and, when investigations are carried out, there will not be unusually long delays in publishing their results because they have simply failed to prove that there was no discrimination against Roman Catholics?
I know that, for example, at the GEC factory in Lame, many inquiries have been carried out by the Fair Employment Agency. People have been waiting for months and months for the outcome of the report. The results will probably be too good to publish. They will probably show that there is no discrimination in my area either, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea).
Will the Minister persuade the Government to extend the scope and life of the fair employment support scheme and reduce the burden on business of the fair employment legislation'? It would show the commitment of Northern Ireland employers if the Minister could say how many Northern Ireland companies have registered for the scheme, and are likely to be assisted with the costs of the first round of monitoring of returns and employers' reviews, as required by the Bill.

Rev. William McCrea: Some hon. Members are sitting here rather smugly. That is probably why they have not much to say about the Bill: they are not much concerned about what will be seen in Northern Ireland as legitimised sectarianism. This is a serious departure from the British concept of democracy—worthy of Soviet Russia rather than the Government of the United Kingdom. It is proposed that our employers should play the role of Mr. Snoopy—or Miss Snoopy.
In the town where I live, which is shared between my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), is a school known as the Rainey Endowed school, which has had an excellent education record for many years. A couple of years ago the Roman Catholic Church decided that its children should no longer be educated at a school which, although it was not described as an integrated school, was integrated in reality: Roman Catholics and Protestants worked side by side, and came out with an education second to none. Many went on to Oxford or Cambridge, and indeed further, carrying the flag of Magherafelt across the world.
Despite the decision of the Roman Catholic Church, a number of Catholic parents decided not to take their children away; but the Minister's document will call the Rainey Endowed a Protestant school, and anyone who writes on the form that he went there will be regarded as Protestant. That is what the statistics will say: the Government have legitimised something that is not true.
My child goes to that school, and I know that a number of Roman Catholics have decided that Protestants and Catholics can be educated together without animosity. But, according to the Minister, when a pupil of that school comes to seek employment and is asked what school he attends, the Minister's document will tell the employer that he is a Protestant, because he has written on the form that he went to the Rainey Endowed school. That is not only misleading but completely untrue—and the stamp of approval has been put on that untruth by the Department of Economic Development in the Northern Ireland Office.
Other children at the school have Pakistani or Indian backgrounds, but according to the Minister's document they belong to the Protestant community because they attend a Protestant school—not a school where everyone is welcome and a number of faiths are represented, along with those who desire to belong to no faith.
Can a person not decide for himself whether he wants to belong to a faith? Can someone brought up in a Church of Ireland home and sent to a certain type of school not decide, when he is of an age to find a job, that he does not want to belong to the Protestant faith? Have such people no rights? They may have no desire to be connected with a particular religious persuasion. The legislation is a complete denial of people's right to make decisions for themselves.

Mr. William Ross: Would not my hon. Friend be wiser to concentrate on the Model school in Londonderry, which is a primary school? I fear that the Minister will try to get out of the case that my hon. Friend is making by pointing out its reference to secondary rather than primary schools. The Model school is a primary school whose religious make-up is about 50:50.

Rev. William McCrea: That is an excellent example of what the Minister and his Department will call a Protestant state school, although 50 per cent. of those who attend it are Roman Catholic. They have a right to attend. The state schools are not Protestant schools; they are open to everyone to gain an education with no religious tag attached.
The form will also ask what sport the applicant plays. What the Department is really trying to find out is which foot he kicks with. Depending on what sport he plays, he is a right footer or a left footer.
Ministers will give a smug answer to many of the harsh realities that I have uttered, but I hope that much of what has been done to the community in Northern Ireland will come home when the ethnic communities on this side of the water wake up to what legislation can do for them. Perhaps neither the Government nor the Opposition Front Bench will be white then. Chickens will come home to roost; and no one will enjoy it more than the people who have suffered at the hands of those who are trying to force sectarianism on the people of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) knows the truth about workplaces in Northern Ireland. So does the Minister: he said that he had been talking to employers. Will he tell us whether they agree that Protestant and Roman Catholic work side by side to achieve a quality of production that many firms on this side of the water long for?

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 4.

Division No. 218]
[8.19 pm


AYES


Amos, Alan
Howells, Geraint


Arbuthnot, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hume, John


Ashby, David
Ingram, Adam


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Jack, Michael


Atkinson, David
Janner, Greville


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Beith, A. J.
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kirkwood, Archy


Boateng, Paul
Knapman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bright, Graham
Lawrence, Ivan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lightbown, David


Burns, Simon
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Butterfill, John
Lord, Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Carrington, Matthew
McCrindle, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
McGrady, Eddie


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maclean, David


Cope, Rt Hon John
McNamara, Kevin


Cran, James
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Devlin, Tim
Maude, Hon Francis


Dixon, Don
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dorrell, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dover, Den
Mowlam, Marjorie


Durant, Tony
Pike, Peter L.


Dykes, Hugh
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Favell, Tony
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Skinner, Dennis


Forman, Nigel
Stern, Michael


Forth, Eric
Stevens, Lewis


Freeman, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Summerson, Hugo


Gregory, Conal
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hague, William
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hanley, Jeremy
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Harris, David
Vaz, Keith


Haynes, Frank
Viggers, Peter


Hayward, Robert
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Walden, George,


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Waller, Gary


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)






Wareing, Robert N.



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Michael Fallon.


Wood, Timothy



NOES


Beggs, Roy



McCrea, Rev William
Tellers for the Noes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Peter Robinson and


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. William Ross.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 20, line 38, leave out
`the period to which the'
and insert
`the date or period to which any'.
No. 29, in page 21, line 23, leave out from second
`different' to end of line 24 and insert 'cases'.
No. 30, in page 21, line 25, leave out 'but this subsection does' and insert—
`(3) The regulations may authorise or require the employer to determine which community if any a person employed or applying for employment in the concern is to be treated as belonging to for the purposes of monitoring by applying the principal method, or one of the principal methods, prescribed or, where that method does not enable him to make that determination or, as the case may be, none of those methods enables him to make that determination, by applying the residuary method, or one of the residuary methods, prescribed; so that, for example—

(a) where an applicant—

(i) has stated that he attended a particular primary school, being a school classified in any list maintained by virtue of subsection (2)(h) above as a school attended mainly by members of a particular community, or
(ii) has stated that he belongs to a particular community,

the employer may be required to determine that he is to be treated as belonging to the community concerned, and
(b) where, in any case not within paragraph (a) above, the employer has information about the applicant, being information which the employer is authorised by the regulations to take into account as tending to show that the person to whom it relates has a connection with a particular community, the employer may be required to determine the community to which the applicant is to be treated as belonging by reference to that information.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) above do'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 30

PERIODIC REVIEWS BY EMPLOYERS

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 22, line 11, leave out from 'concern' to end of line 15 and insert—
`(1A) In a case where it appears to the employer in the course of the review that members of a particular community are not enjoying, or are not likely to continue to enjoy, such participation, he shall as part of the review determine the affirmative action (if any) which would be reasonable and appropriate.
(1B) In a case where the employer determines in the course of the review that affirmative action would be reasonable and appropriate he shall as part of the review—

(a) consider whether, assuming the action is taken, it is practicable to determine, by reference to one or more periods, the progress towards fair participation in employment in the concern that can reasonably be expected to be made by members of a particular community, and
(b) if he considers that it is practicable to determine such progress, determine the period or periods concerned and, in respect of each period, the progress that, in his opinion, can reasonably be expected to be made by members of the community concerned in relation to the composition of—


(i) those employed in the concern in Northern Ireland or those whose employment in the concern in Northern Ireland begins after the determination, and
(ii) those applying for such employment.'.—[Mr.Viggers.]

Clause 31

ENQUIRIES BY THE COMMISSION

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 22, line 45, leave out from 'review' to end of line 4 on page 23 and insert—
`(b) as to any determination under subsection (1A) of section 30 of this Act, and
(c) in a case falling within subsection (1B) of that section, as to his consideration of the matters referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection and any determination under paragraph (b) of that subsection.'.
No. 33, in page 23, line 5, leave out
`any such matter as is referred to in subsection (3)(b) above' and insert
'that members of a particular community are not enjoying, or are not likely to continue to enjoy, fair participation in employment in the concern'.
No. 34, in page 23, line 7, at end insert
`and as to the matters referred to in subsection (1B)(a) of section 30 of this Act and any determination under subsection (1B)(b) of that section.
(4A) Where the employer discloses to the Commission under this section a determination to take any affirmative action, the Commission may from time to time require him to give the Commission such information as it may specify as to the affirmative action that he has taken or proposes to take, but the Commission may not require an employer to give any information under this subsection before the expiry of the period of six months beginning with—

(a) the date of the disclosure, or
(b) if he has previously been required to give any information under this subsection, the date on which he was last required to do so.

(4B) Where the employer discloses to the Commission under this section any determination under section 30(1B)(b) of this Act, the Commission may from time to time require him to give the Commission such information as it may specify for the purpose of determining the extent to which the progress that the employer determined could reasonably be expected to be made in any period has been made on the date of the requirement, but the Commission may not require an employer to give any information under this subsection before the expiry of the period of six months beginning with—

(a) the date of the disclosure, or
(b) if he has previously been required to give any information under this subsection, the date on which he was last required to do so.'.

No 35, in page 23, line 12, leave out 'a' and insert
`the reference in subsections (4A) and (4B) above to the date of the requirement is to the date on which the notice was served.
(5A) A'.
No. 36, in page 23, line 13, leave out 'that' and insert `any'.
No. 37, in page 23, line 17, leave out from 'time' to end of line 18.
No. 38, in page 23, line 19, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 20 and insert—
'(6A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) above—

(a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and
(b) if the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.



No. 39, in page 23, line 21, leave out from 'under' to second `to' in line 22 and insert 'subsection (6) above'.
No. 40, in page 23, line 24, leave out
'that requirement by that time'
and insert
'the requirement by the specified time'.
No. 41, in page 23, line 30, at end insert—
'(8) A person required to give any information under this section who knowingly gives any false or misleading information is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 35

NOTICES ABOUT GOALS AND TIMETABLES

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 25, line 23, leave out from 'under' to 'or' in line 28 and insert
'Part I of this Act to take any action,
(b) he has been directed under that Part to take any action'.
No. 43, in page 25, line 31, leave out from 'action' to end of line 32.
No. 44, in page 25, line 33, at beginning insert
'being action appearing to the Commission to be affirmative action'.
No. 45, in page 26, line 3, leave out from 'him' to 'the Commission" in line 7 and insert
'the notice shall cease to have effect—

(a) if the Tribunal makes an order for the purpose of giving effect to the undertaking or directions or, in the case of directions, the Tribunal or the Commission substitutes for them or any of them other directions, or
(b) in the case of directions, if they, or such of them as the notice relates to, are quashed or otherwise cease to have effect, or
(c) in the case of an undertaking, if it, or such part of it as the notice relates to, ceases to have effect,

but without prejudice, in a case within paragraph (a) above, to any power to give a new notice.
(4) Where a notice about goals and timetables has effect'.
No. 46, in page 26, line 24, leave out from 'time' to end of line 25.
No. 47, in page 26, line 27, leave out from 'above' to end of line 32 and insert—

'(a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and
(b) if the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.

No. 48, in page 26, line 33, leave out from 'under' to second `to' in line 34 and insert 'subsection (7) above'.
No. 49, in page 26, line 36, leave out
'that requirement by that time'
and insert
'the requirement by the specified time'.
No. 50, in page 26, line 42, at end insert—
'(10) A person required to give any information under this section who knowingly gives any false or misleading information is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.[Mr.Viggers.]

Clause 39

RESTRICTION ON EXECUTION OF WORKS, ETC. BY UNQUALIFIED PERSONS

Amendment made: No. 51, in page 30, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'Northern Ireland' and insert

'by the Secretary of State, by the Department or, after consultation with the Department, by any other'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 43

ADDITIONAL POWERS OF COMMISSION TO OBTAIN INFORMATION

Amendments made: No. 52, in page 31, line 43, leave out from 'time' to end of line 44.
No. 53, in page 31, line 45, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 46 and insert—
'(3A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) above—

(a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and
(b) if the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.

No. 54, in page 32, line 1, leave out from 'under' to second `to' in line 2 and insert 'subsection (3) above'.
No. 55, in page 32, line 4, leave out
'that requirement by that time'
and insert
'the requirement by the specified time'.
No. 56, in page 32, line 10, at end insert—
'(4A) A person required to give any information under this section who knowingly gives any false or misleading information is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 44

PROCEDURE IN CASE OF DEFAULT BY CROWN BODIES

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 32, line 21, after '31' insert '35'.
No. 58, iii page 32, line 22, at end insert—
'and, accordingly, sections 32(3), 33 and 40 do not apply in relation to such a public authority.'.—[Mr.Viggers.]

Clause 45

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Mr. Viggers: I beg to move, amendment No. 59, in page 33, line 18, at end insert—
'(1A) The Department may by order amend the definition of "employee" in subsection (1) above by substituting for the number of hours for the time being specified in paragraph (a) such other number as is specified in the order.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 67 and 68.

Mr. Viggers: The amendment empowers the Department to vary the number of hours in the definition of "employee" by order exercisable by statutory rule subject to affirmative resolution procedure in the Northern Ireland assembly and, thus, to negative resolution at Westminster during direct rule. This is in response to an undertaking I gave in Committee and I hope that the House will support it.

Ms. Mowlam: I should like to put on record the fact that we are pleased that the Government have met the request that we made in Committee. This is a particular problem in relation to part-time workers, the majority of whom are women. We are pleased that the Minister listened to our arguments.

Mr. McCrady: I should like to thank the Minister for making the provision capable of revision. It is vital to a substantial number of employees in Northern Ireland, such as home helps in the Health Service, hospital cleaners and part-time farmers. A considerable amount of the employment in Northern Ireland is short term. I hope that there will be careful monitoring by the Department of the requisite number of hours—16. I hope that that will be revised if it is found that many people who may be subject to discrimination are outside the scope of the Act simply because they work only 12 or 15 hours. I hope that the Minister will undertake to bring about a speedy revision if it is found to be necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47

MEANING OF "DISCRIMINATION"

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 35, line 11, leave out 'requirement or condition' and insert
`requirement, condition, policy or practice'.
This matter arose in Committee and it is important and technical. Our arguments can be found by hon. Members if they look at the appropriate point in the Committee proceedings.
The purpose of the amendment is to tighten the provision dealing with indirect discrimination to deal with the problems thrown up by recent developments in case law in anti-discrimination legislation. At present, a complainant can prove a case of indirect discrimination only if he can show that the barrier that has prevented him from securing the post in question is a "requirement or condition". That could be interpreted by the courts in such a way as to include "policy or practice", thus rendering the amendment superfluous.
However, case law suggests that the courts interpret such provisions in a narrow way. Two well known cases—Meer and Pereira—have been dealt with in the Court of Appeal. In both cases a narrow interpretation has been applied by which, in order to show indirect discrimination, the complainant must show that the behaviour of the employer against whom he is complaining constitutes an absolute bar to the complainant's employment. Anything less is not indirect discrimination.
In practice, that means that an employer could decide to exercise a preference in favour of people who are not residents of west Belfast, east Belfast or Magherafelt. As long as the preference was not an absolute ban on the employment of people from those places, it would be legal. The amendment would ensure that such preferences were included in the definition of indirect discrimination.
A further point must be made which was not made in Committee. When the Court of Appeal was discussing the Meer case it made its decision on the understanding that legislative change would be forthcoming. The case was partially argued on the basis of forthcoming legislative change and the court stated that the case required Parliament to act.
The Government's main objection to the amendment is that it would change the definition of indirect discrimination and, therefore, has obvious implications for Britain's sex and race legislation. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Government have promised to introduce an amendment which, while not changing the

definition of indirect discrimination, will assist the Fair Employment Commission in dealing with employers who adopt dubious practices which fall short of indirect discrimination.
The full argument on that case is contained in paragraphs 623 and 624—pages 57 and 58—of SACHR's report. I will not weary the House by quoting that extensively. However, the case law is well argued and can be seen. I would be happy to introduce it into the debate if I felt that it would command the attention of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members.
It will be nonsense if we have a phrase in the code of practice saying that certain practices must not be used in terms of employment when seeking to engage new workers which, if challenged before an industrial tribunal, would have to be upheld on the basis of Court of Appeal decisions. That is not what the Government or the Opposition want. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider the matter carefully. It would be terrible if, as was once said by one of my hon. Friends, the barrel of honey was ruined for a penn'orth of tar.

Mr. Viggers: I will not rehearse the arguments that have been the subject of discussion and correspondence between the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and myself. I understand the point he makes. We are contemplating the possibility of introducing an amendment which would operate on the following lines. It would place a duty on the commission to follow proceedings of all individual cases before the tribunal. It would give the commission the discretion to form an opinion, following its analysis of an individual case, that the respondent might fail to afford equality of opportunity. It would give the commission a discretionary power to inform the respondent concerned of its opinion that he should take action to promote equality of opportunity and provide, as with clause 13, that any person so informed may give a written and voluntary undertaking to the commission to take the appropriate action.
This proposal, which responds to suggestions by the Opposition, is still being considered and it is a very technical matter. It seems to have the merit of placing the key function of recommending action in the area of equality of opportunity on the commission rather than running the risk of compromising the tribunal's appellate role in pattern and practice cases by placing it on the tribunal. Moreover, the result is the same in that the employer is placed on notice that in the opinion of the commission certain action is necessary to promote equality, irrespective of the outcome of the individual's discrimination case.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this matter is being considered and that we will take full account of the points that he has just made. We shall seek to bring forward some words which will take account of this fact if we are able to meet the points in the other place.

Mr. McNamara: I am obliged to the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48

COMPLAINTS OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION

Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 38, line 13, leave out from 'exceed' to end of line 15 and insert `£30,000'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 90 and 91.

Mr. Viggers: There has been concern that the limit of £8,925 on compensation payable by the tribunal in individual cases of religious discrimination is too restrictive and a flaw in the Bill. By way of response to these concerns, the Government's amendment increases the limit that the tribunal can order from £8,925 to £30,000.
As hon. Members will be aware, the new Fair Employment Tribunal is modelled closely on the existing industrial tribunal structure and, as such, it attracted the maximum level of fine for discrimination available under the industrial tribunal mechanism£8,925. However, it was pointed out in Committee that such a figure, particularly since it represented a maximum level of compensation, could well deter individuals from bringing cases of discrimination given the unique sensitivities which attach to the issue of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland.
We therefore considered uprating the £8,925 limit to a level equivalent to that already set in the Bill for failure to comply with orders of the tribunal. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for putting this idea forward. I am pleased to say that 1 accept the rationale of the amendment. The other two amendments provide for the Department by order to change the figure of £30,000 to take account of a change in the value of money.

Mr. William Ross: We seem to be increasing the sum in the amendment while leaving aside the sums in article 37 of the Industrial Relations Order 1976. I am not clear about whether those sums will be increased by a like amount.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 90, in page 38, line 46, at end insert—
'(9) If it appears to the Department that there has been a change in the value of money since the relevant date, it may by order substitute for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (4) such other sum as appears to it to be justified by the change.
(10) In subsection (9) "the relevant date" means—

(a) in relation to the first order under that subsection, the commencement of section 48 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, and
(b) in relation to each subsequent order, the last occasion when the sum specified in subsection (4) was altered.

(11) A statutory rule containing an order under subsection (9) shall be subject to negative resolution; and section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (meaning of "subject to negative resolution" shall apply as if the power to make the order were conferred by a Measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly.'.
No. 60, in page 39, line 47, leave out subsection (4).
No. 61, in page 40, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

`(1) Where a prospective complainant requests the Commission in writing for advice in relation to prospective proceedings under this Part, the Commission shall give him such advice unless it considers that the request is frivolous.'
No. 62, in page 40, line 32, leave out 'and'.
No. 63, in page 40, line 38, at end insert
`and
(e) any other form of assistance which the Commission may consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Viggers]

Clause 51

PROVISION OF TRAINING

Amendment made: No. 64, in page 42, leave out lines 9 to 11.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 52

MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE APPLICATIONS ETC. FROM UNDER-REPRESENTED COMMUNITY

Amendment made: No. 65, in page 42, line 26, leave out '(within the meaning of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989)'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Clause 54

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 66, in page 42, line 39, after '9(10),' insert `17(5A),'.
No. 67, in page 42, line 39, leave out 'or 39(3)' and insert '39(3) or 45(1A)'.
No. 68, in page 42, line 42, leave out from 'regulations' to 'has' in line 43 and insert
'under section 23(8) or 28 of this Act or order under section 45(1A) of this Act shall be made unless a draft of the regulations or order'.
No. 69, in page 43, line 2 after 'section' insert '17(5A),'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 70, in page 45, line 40 at end insert
'or section 2 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989'.
No. 71, in page 47, line 47 leave out
'section 12(2) to (5) and sections' and insert 'sections 12(3),'.
No. 91, in page 48, line 10, leave out from 'subsection (2)' to 'and' in line 11 and insert
'for "an order under section" there is substituted "regulations under section 28 or an order under section 26(9) or".'.
No. 72, in page 48, line 13 at end insert—
'(za) after the definition of "advertisement" there is inserted—
"'affirmative action' has the meaning given by section 55 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989;",'.
No. 92, in page 49, line 7, at end insert—
'29. In Article 38(2) of that Order for "court" there is substituted "the Fair Employment Tribunal for Northern Ireland".'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Viggers: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Fair employment is a matter of concern to every individual in Northern Ireland, irrespective of religious affiliation or political opinion. It follows that legislation must be fair to all. It must be objective, balanced and capable of impartial application. We believe that our Bill


meets these criteria. It maintains the centrality of the merit principle at the point of selection, it ensures the freedom of employers to choose the best man or women for the job, it prohibits reverse discrimination and the operation of quotas in employment.
At the same time, the reality is that employment opportunities in the Province must be made available more equitably between the two communities. That is fully justifiable. [Interruption.] We need more jobs and the Government are working hard to attract more.
It is also justifiable on social, economic and political grounds. Denial of equal opportunity in employment deprives individuals not just of one opportunity but of many. Jobs and their remuneration confer status, social mobility and self-esteem. The lack of opportunity to compete for them on an equal basis with others has very damaging repercussions on every individual so deprived. It is personally frustrating, but, worse than that, it wastes talents and abilities that could otherwise be usefully and constructively deployed, not only to the benefit of the individual, but to that of society in general. Therefore, equality in employment opportunity has a strong social justification.
It can also be justified, and just as powerfully, in economic terms. We have often stressed that the promotion of equality of opportunity should be seen, and is best and most effectively delivered, as an integral part of good personnel practice. Employers want freedom of choice to select the best man or woman for the job. It follows that it is in their interests to ensure the widest possible pool of competing applicants. Sound employment procedures are fully consistent with that basic economic objective. They complement systematic and qualitative selection techniques, while leaving the employer free to exercise choice on the basis of ability, aptitude and potential for the job in question.
Politically, it is self-evident that a more equitable distribution of economic opportunities between both communities in the Province will contribute to a greater degree of social cohesion and stability. That, in turn, will help to promote higher levels of mutual respect and appreciation between both communities without any compromise of traditional identities. Strategically, the promotion of equality of opportunity is complementary to the range of broader initiatives that the Government are already undertaking in the community relations field.
These principles are all reflected in the philosophy underlying the Bill. They are, of course, optimistic principles, and we make no apology for that. The Bill offers hope and expectation, but it is also realistic. It recognises that, for that hope and expectation to be fulfilled, both tough legislative provisions and effective implementation are necessary. The Bill is certainly strong. Its compulsory monitoring and review, criminal penalties, and economic sanctions all testify to that.
Our new legislation must now be effectively implemented. That is the next challenge, and good progress is already being made with the help of employers and trade unions.
Voluntary monitoring is gathering considerable momentum within Northern Ireland, with more than 420 private sector companies taking advantage of the Government's fair employment support scheme. Given that scheme's importance in the promotion of monitoring

practices throughout the private sector and the response of employers to it, I am pleased to inform the House that the Government propose to extend it for a further year.
In the public sector, voluntary monitoring is now already under way, or being prepared for introduction, across a broad spectrum of undertakings including the Civil Service, the court service, the Housing Executive and health and education boards. I am encouraged by the fact that employers' organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry, Engineering Employers Federation and Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and trade unions co-operated with the Government in educational initiatives. The Confederation of British Industry has, in addition, organised seminars for its own members, and the Engineering Employers Federation and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions recently published a joint declaration of protection for the important engineering sector.
Those are all encouraging and commendable developments. The Government recognise that their continued momentum depends to a considerable extent on the commission and employers working closely and co-operatively together. It also recognises that the commission will wish to operate to the very highest standards of professionalism, impartiality and objectivity; and to do so in a clear and consistent manner. Employers should also feel able to turn to the commission for confidential advice and guidance without the need for formal investigation or scrutiny.
Accordingly, the Government expect the commission not only to draw up and publish its own rules of procedure but consult employers' organisations and other interested parties in doing so.
In our White Paper we committed ourselves to progressive evaluation and formal review. I have already said that I will consult at regular six-monthly intervals with the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission and that the formal review will be undertaken by the central community relations unit. In doing so, it will take the broadest possible approach. Clarification was sought on that point in Committee. I am pleased to provide it. I consider it essential that the unit's views should be closely informed by interested parties outside Government and particularly by those bodies who contributed so constructively and influentially to the framing of the legislation. Accordingly, in reviewing this legislation the unit will seek observations from outside bodies such as the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, employers' organisations, trade unions, the Equal Opportunities Commission and, of course, the Fair Employment Commission.
As already indicated in Committee, the outcome of the unit's report will be published so that all interested parties are fully informed of the consequential action proposed. That is important, because there is no doubt that in preparing for the new legislation the Government have been greatly assisted by the voluntary initiatives of individual employers, employers' organisations and trade unions. Our thinking has been constructively influenced by the various submissions on fair employment matters received over the last few years not only from such bodies but from the Fair Employment Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission, various Churches and other interest groups and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, in its very influential report.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister allow me to intervene?

Mr. Viggers: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but those matters were debated at length in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman will have another opportunity to raise further points.
The Government are grateful for the enterprise and initiative of all concerned, and they look forward to sustained co-operation between such bodies and the Fair Employment Commission in helping to ensure the effective implementation of the legislation.
The post of chief executive in the commission will shortly be advertised, and in preparation for the transition from agency to commission a group representative of Government and the agency has been set up to make all the necessary plans and arrangements for the transition. Appointments have already been announced of those designated to assume the key roles of chairman of the Fair Employment Commission and of president of the Fair Employment Tribunal. Work is also going forward on the subordinate legislation that will be consequent on the passage of this Bill, and work is also in hand on preparation of the draft code of practice on which there will be subsequent consultation with all interested parties.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) had the opportunity on Report to make a number of contributions, and I am sure that he will have another opportunity to speak during this debate. It will be more approprate to deal with further points at the end of my remarks.
I assure the House that, having anticipated the passage of this legislation, the Government are gearing themselves to ensure that the measures are in place and fully effective as soon as possible. I pay tribute to my fellow members of the Standing Committee and to our Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). I also express my appreciation for the constructive and positive suggestions made by the official Opposition and by other parties during consideration of the Bill, whether in Committee or on Report. I am sure that the Bill that I now urge the House to approve is sharper and more effective as a result of our deliberations. That is important, given the strong commitment of all parties in the House to the principle of fair employment and its effective implementation in Northern Ireland. I invite the House to approve the Bill.

Mr. McNamara: Northern Ireland occupies an unusual position in the United Kingdom, both in terms of its constitutional status and of its attitude to Northern Ireland business within this House. One of the assumptions that has permeated thinking on Northern Ireland is that the normal cut and thrust between Government and Opposition should not apply, summed up in the term bipartisanship.
Underlying that assumption is the belief that it is the Opposition's duty loyally and uncritically to support the Government in their Northern Ireland policies. That view confuses two things. No one should neglect to recognise the difficulties and personal sacrifices involved on the part of those right hon. and hon. Members who serve and have served in Northern Ireland. Ministers are entitled to sympathy and understanding on that score. But to proceed

from that view to the argument that the best interests of Northern Ireland are served by an uncritical approach on the part of the Opposition is a serious error of logic. Even if the Government and Opposition did not have substantial differences about Northern Ireland's long-term future, an uncritical approach would still be inappropriate.
Our experience of progress with the Bill confirms my long-held belief that a constructive and critical perspective on the part of the Opposition is the best policy. The Bill was substantially amended in Committee and on Report, and is now a better Bill than it was when first laid before the House at the end of last year. Given today's undertakings, it will be far better still when it returns from another place. I am certain that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland agree that the Bill has benefited from the long, arduous and tortuous discussions in Committee. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was the only person who sat in his place for the whole of the Committee's proceedings. That was a considerable physical feat, apart from the fact that he had to suffer all of us. We commend him for it.
It is the duty of a responsible Opposition not to keep their views to themselves but to present them as forcefully and as cogently as possible. The improvements made since Second Reading reflect very favourably on the ability of the Secretary of State and the Minister to listen to reason as expressed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I may say en passant that that quality is in short supply among the other members of the Government. However, the Department's sensible attitude shows the importance that we all attach to the role of human rights, particularly in Northern Ireland, and the need to ensure that the Bill is as proper and correct as it can be.
What is more important about that give and take on both sides is that it helps to demonstrate the validity of reason as a political weapon in the context of Northern Ireland—and that makes a valuable contribution to taking the guns out of Northern Ireland politics. The normal exchange of political ideas is of much greater benefit than an artificial unanimity within the House.
Let us briefly examine the progress that has been made. The Bill has been amended in several important respects. Goals and timetables have been added and provision has been made to change the definition of "employee" by empowering the Government to lower the 16-hour limit by Order in Council. The unacceptable provisions relating to compensation for individuals deemed to be victims of discrimination have been altered to permit more realistic payments. The arrangements concerning monitoring have been amended to make the process less amenable to sabotage. Amendments have been introduced to permit advertising calculated to encourage applications from members of under-represented groups and to improve the administration of the enforcement mechanisms, and to some extent the conflict between affirmative action and discrimination has been tackled.
We have also had assurances today that the Government will be taking action to deal with the weaknesses of the definition of indirect discrimination and some of the conflicts between the Bill and sex discrimination and European legislation. I also understand that employers will be permitted to take


unemployment into account and that the Government consider exclusive recruitment from the job market to be lawful.
I also welcome the Government's decision, in correspondence to me, to introduce procedures to ensure that information supplied to the Department from the commission will be governed by strict rules as to the use to which such information is put. We all welcome today's decision to extend the voluntary monitoring system for another year. I should have liked it to be extended indefinitely as it is an important inducement to employers. The Minister's statement today about the role, work and methods of dealing with the central community relations unit is also important. In short, most of the points which the Secretary of State claimed were mischievous on Second Reading have become orthodoxy on Third Reading.
Until tonight, the matter of affirmative action still had to be satisfactorily resolved. We discussed the issue earlier this evening and there is no point in going into detail now, but the action that the Government intend to take in that regard will remove many of our remaining fears about the effect of the legislation. It is not a question of the Government's integrity or desire; it is a question of the Bill's competence to meet the Government's intentions and desires. The proposals that the Government are thinking of implementing will be extremely important if they are carried through. Therefore, the conflict between clause 51 and the European Community equal treatment directive will also be eliminated.
However, we still have reservations about the Bill. The issue of clause 42 must be tackled. We have discussed some of its difficulties, but the essential element is the unacceptability of including a provision which violates individuals' rights in an arbitrary way, particularly in legislation which is designed to secure and extend human rights.
We do not believe that the Government have adopted the correct approach to contract compliance. By making it difficult to exclude from Government contracts employers who practise discrimination the Government are putting out the wrong signal. Although I appreciate what the Minister said earlier, we would not have fashioned the Bill in that way. However, we welcome the points that the Minister has made and we do not doubt the Government's commitment to equal opportunity.
I regret that the Government have refused to respond to the challenge of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights report on fair employment, which called upon the Government to set their own goal and timetable for the elimination of the differential rate of Catholic and Protestant unemployment. I understand the difficulty, but, as we had to point out, and as the Government eventually had to accept, goals and timetables are not in themselves affirmative action but are a way of measuring affirmative action. As the Government are such an important employer, it would have been a fine thing, and let us hope that it happens in areas where the Government have considerable influence.
That leads me to the question of political will, which is another wider problem. Northern Ireland desperately needs more employment as well as fair employment. To attract inward investment—a subject close to the hearts of the Secretary of State and of the Minister and on which they have worked very hard; we support them in their endeavours—it is necessary to convince North American investors that equality of opportunity is being provided. In

some ways we do not like the American concern, although we understand it, but it would be foolish not to realise that it exists. Investors have the right, if not the duty, to ensure that their money is employed only or socially acceptable purposes in a socially acceptable environment. Ethical investment is not a purely American phenomenon, as has been shown by its growth in Britain. It is real and should be encouraged. Therefore, I hope that North American friends of Northern Ireland, when looking at this legislation, will turn their attention to its implementation, to seek and encourage investment in firms in which there is investment possibility and fair employment and that the Government have methods of monitoring it and enforcing it with fair remedies which now appear to have real potential as a result of the Bill.
To rectify the historical patterns of inequality which have so disfigured the Province, effective equality of opportunity must be provided in Northern Ireland. That is necessary to assist in the process of establishing a genuinely democratic system in Northern Ireland. The Government must realise that the essential passage of the Bill to the statute book is not the end of the matter; it is a means to an important end. If we were to take that misguided attitude, the effort put into the Bill by the Government and the Opposition would be wasted.
The Government should not leave the matter solely in the hands of the bodies set up by the Bill. They must openly and persistently demonstrate their commitment to equality of opportunity. The Bill now provides a strong, potential legal foundation for an equality of opportunity policy. Much building work remains to be done. We have to monitor the implementation of the policy, for example. The Government must ensure that their own house is in order, given the limited applicability of the Bill to the public sector. They must ensure that their industrial policy, especially with respect to the location of employment, takes on board the concept of equality of opportunity. I hope that the Government are aware of the necessity of following through the legislation if their own noble objectives, which they have laid down for themselves today and in the Bill, are to be achieved.
This is not the Bill that a Labour Government would have introduced. It is not even the Bill we were considering introducing under Standing Order No. 58, if the Government had not amended the Bill. We would have been prepared to introduce a Bill that would have been based more strongly and more specifically on the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and on the reasonable proposals of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
As I have said before, we still have reservations. We continue to hope that some of the defects will be rectified, as we have been promised this evening. Nevertheless, we have been given some idea of the way in which the Government intend to proceed. They have given us firm undertakings about what will happen in the other place, and we have made considerable progress since Second Reading. The Bill is now potentially strong and workable, which was not the case in January. In those circumstances, if the Bill is challenged on Third Reading, I will recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they should in confidence go with the Government into the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The final words of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) have come as no surprise to hon. Members, especially those of us who served in Committee. It comes as no surprise that the Labour party are toeing the Government's line this evening. There were two incidents in Committee that persuaded many of us that the Labour party was simply putting up a front and was not intending seriously to challenge the Government on any of their measures. I can recall that, on the second day in Committee, Labour Members, sticking their chests out, tabled an amendment which would have required the Fair Employment Tribunal to be statutorily fair and impartial, and to deal with its business according to a set time schedule.
However, the Minister had only to utter the weakest of assurances and the stiff opposition of the Labour party melted away. Labour Members sought to withdraw their amendment, which would have required the tribunal, by law, to act fairly and impartially and which provided that it could be taken to a judicial review if it did not act in that manner. When I refused Labour Members the right to withdraw their amendment, I watched the sorry spectacle of Labour Members voting against their own amendment —so much for the Labour party's opposition in Committee. As we have seen in this stage of the Bill, that party's opposition to the Bill has disappeared entirely.
The second event that I can recall most closely was when I tabled an amendment in Committee. In passing, I should add that I believe the measure to be so flawed and defective that no amendment would make it a satisfactory piece of legislation. Moreover, having listened to the debates in Committee, I was eventually persuaded to table one amendment which was—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I should be much obliged if the hon. Gentleman would relate his remarks to Third Reading. He is making quite a lot of what took place in Committee, but we are now on Third Reading. I ask him to relate his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Robinson: I hear what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and recognise that that is the view by which you should like me to abide.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am asking the hon. Gentleman to abide by the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Robinson: Of course, but all that I am doing is what others have done before me, which is to paint a backcloth against which we can consider this Third Reading. I am sure that no one would seek to deny me rights that others have enjoyed before me.
I was concluding my reference to the amendment that sought to establish that the Fair Employment Commission itself, which the legislation establishes, should be bound by law to abide by the very regulations that it would seek to force employers in Northern Ireland to accept. However, in Committee both Government and Opposition Members voted against that proposition. I cannot understand how people who really want to ensure that there is fair employment in Northern Ireland could find it offensive that a body that is to carry through fair employment principles in the Province should not be bound by the same

strictures that it would seek to have regulated in Northern Ireland. However, the Government and the weak Labour Opposition did not decide to go down that road.
Of necessity I must advise the House, lest its view is believed, that much of the argument of the Labour party is that discrimination is essentially against one section of the community. I do not see it that way. Indeed, that is not the history of Northern Ireland. Discrimination that any hon. Member would find offensive occurs in both sections of the community, but happily it does not occur to the degree that a debate such as this might suggest and it is not as rampant and as widespread as this measure might suggest.
Protestants are discriminated against just as much as Roman Catholics have been discriminated against. It does no good if people pretend that there has not been any discrimination in Northern Ireland. All hon. Members should want to end discrimination in Northern Ireland. Indeed, there is no difference in the House on that.
During the Bill's passage through Committee and the House a number of reports have been issued that suggested that discrimination is still taking place. I can recall that, much to the embarrassment of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), the council in his area was found to have an imbalance in its work force that favoured the Roman Catholic section of the community and discriminated against the Protestant community. Indeed, Protestants were again discriminated against in Strabane, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and, much to the embarrassment of the Minister and of Mr. Bob Cooper, the Fair Employment Agency itself had to confess that it was discriminating against Protestants—although I am sure that those are not quite the words that it used in its admission.
Discrimination does take place, and it is not confined to one section of the community. The question therefore is what we do to eliminate or at least to reduce it. The Government had a choice. They could have brought forward a measure with a stick-and-carrot approach, with heavy penalties for those found to have discriminated, and encouragements to employers to ensure that they advertised in such a way as to allow all sections of the community access to interviews for employment, and that they used the recruitment procedures of the various schools in the Province. That is the approach that I would have favoured.
I said in earlier debates that I would have been happier to see even bigger penalties than the Bill recommends, provided they were to be used against those who discriminated and we did not have what the Government call affirmative action, which is, in effect, reverse discrimination. Earlier, the Minister said that they would prohibit reverse discrimination and the use of quotas. The truth is that the Government have encouraged reverse discrimination. Through goals and timetables, they have set up a system of quotas. I was about to say that it is the thin end of the wedge, but quotas and reverse discrimination are well up the wedge.
The Government are giving a clear signal to employers in Northern Ireland that, if their books do not balance as to the ratio between Protestants and Roman Catholic employees, they will have to make them balance, whatever has to be sacrificed. If employers have to sacrifice the merit principle, so be it. The clear message from the Government is that employers should have the right balance.
The Protestant community feels that the Government do not want the right balance Provincewide but only in certain parts of the Province. The Fair Employment Agency is not as concerned when it finds an imbalance which favours the Roman Catholic section of the community. I and others have gone to the Fair Employment Agency to ask for reports on various employers. If the discrimination is believed to be against Protestants, the same enthusiasm has not been evident in the agency. It was because of the lack of trust, faith and confidence in the Fair Employment Agency that I felt it essential that it should be bound by the same measures as it was seeking to impose upon others in relation to employment practices.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the Fair Employment Agency should have been using the same, consistent, procedures in all its investigations and should not have gone through all sorts of contortions in order to try to prove its point?

Mr. Robinson: Yes. In many ways the Fair Employment Agency was seen by the Protestant community to be touting for business from one section of the community. It is in the interest of the Government that all sections of the community should have confidence in fair employment procedures in Northern Ireland. They will not get that confidence if they refuse to make the Fair Employment Commission and the tribunal answerable to the same regulations that they are imposing upon employers.
The other essential point is that the public must have confidence in those who are in control of the Fair Employment Commission. People have no confidence in Bob Cooper, because they know his background. They know that he is a political animal and a political reject; they know where he stood before. They have seen how he acted in his role as chairman of the Fair Employment Agency, and they have no confidence in him because of that. By making that man chairman of the new Fair Employment Commission, the Minister could not get the commission off to a worse start. Whatever pressures were applied to the Minister, he made a bad choice that will damage the working of the legislation.
The legislation will not be used just by the hon. Member for South Down. I have seen enough over the last few years as an elected representative to know that I will use the legislation on behalf of my constituents, just as the hon. Gentleman will use it on behalf of his.

Rev. William McCrea: Will my hon. Friend seek an assurance from the Minister that, when matters are referred to the agency, there will be a proper investigation into discrimination against Protestants? Until now, it has been absolutely impossible to do so.

Mr. Robinson: The Minister will have heard my hon. Friend's plea, and he will have an opportunity to respond to it. If the legislation had required the tribunal to act in a fair, balanced and impartial way, other legal measures would have been available. As the legislation stands, the tribunal can pick and choose and decide for itself. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is shaking his head. We will see what happens.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in Committee, the Minister gave an undertaking, and has

since introduced an amendment, to enable any individual to apply to the commission, thereby placing an obligation on the commission to give correct and proper advice to the individual.

Mr. Robinson: Any individual could go along to the Fair Employment Agency today and get advice. Practice will show whether people get a fair deal from the Fair Employment Commission. As the person who has failed the community is part of the leadership of the Fair Employment Commission, the community and I have little confidence that they will get a fair deal from it.
In Committee, I started by not believing that the measure could be redeemed. I have seen the proceedings in Committee and the close relationship between the Labour party and the Government in the House this evening. However, there is no doubt that the measure—all hon. Members knew that it could probably have been sent by post—will become law. It will not do the job, if the job is to get fair employment in Northern Ireland. I fancy that the job is something else and that the Government did not do what they knew was right or best in fair employment. The Government did what was demanded of them in the Anglo-Irish Conference by their partners in the Republic of Ireland. Their own documentation shows that this measure was pressed through the intergovernmental conference. It is the product of Dublin rule in Northern Ireland. No wonder it is militating against the Province and the community in Ulster. I hope that people will see it for what it is.

Mr. Ashdown: One of the depressing aspects of dealing with Northern Ireland, either its politics, studying it, living in it or, from time to time, having to do such things as keeping the peace in it, is that, again and again, one is visited by the same old sad, sour predictability that hon. Members have heard in the speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). Not a word of it would have been of surprise to anybody who has studied or lived in Northern Ireland for the past 20 or 30 years.
I was brought up in the north of Ireland. I hope that I do not stray from the Bill, but this matter has a bearing on discrimination. I was brought up as the child of a Protestant Northern Irish mother and a Catholic southern Irish father. I was brought up in Comber. I remember, as a boy aged 13 or 14, walking the streets of Belfast and being absolutely certain that, coming at us like a dark spectre, was the evil of upsurge, rebellion and disruption as a result of the discrimination, deprivation and poverty that I saw visited against a section of that society. Again and again, we are now blighted—cursed—in Ireland by a group of people who remember everything dating back to the battle of the Boyne but have learnt absolutely nothing.
I welcome this legislation. I do not pretend that it will be perfect. It will not be, and there will be imperfections. Hon. Gentlemen who wish it evil from the start will no doubt be able to pick out strange rulings and so on, but the key question is whether the measure will add to the sum of fairness and justice in Northern Ireland.

Rev. William McCrea: For whom?

Mr. Ashdown: For the population as a whole. Will it be an instrument to bring peace, reconciliation and some ordinary common form of living our ordinary lives? It will not achieve that by itself, but we must ask whether it will


add to the instruments that are available to us to produce that kind of society. Those who have sought to block it all the way down the track are only seeking to plunge back into a system which has blighted a great people and a great Province with a great capacity to contribute.
I support the Bill. In many ways it lived up in Committee to all the hopes I had of it when I spoke and voted for it on Second Reading. At that time the Labour party decided to vote against it, and while I believe that its judgment was wrong, I wish at this stage to pay tribute to Labour Members. I also pay tribute to the Minister because he and the Government generally have shown great wisdom in the way in which they were prepared to accommodate the two matters that were brought before them. I pay tribute to Labour Members for the work they did in introducing, arguing and getting some amendments accepted. While I am paying tribute, I do as the Minister did and pay tribute to others who have been involved in the framing of the legislation, those outside the House such as SACHR and others who gave advice.
I strongly dissent from the miserable, blighted and mean words of the hon. Member for Belfast, East about Bob Cooper. I accept that Bob Cooper would not be welcome to everybody. Any person who stands up to the kind of evil and bigotry to be found in Northern Ireland will make some enemies somewhere. One cannot win new liberties and new justice in Northern Ireland in the face of what one experiences in that unhappy Province without making some enemies. But Bob Cooper's contribution, in his previous political life in the Alliance party and through his previous appointment, has been great, including his contribution to the Bill. I greet with great warmth the fact that he has been appointed to be head of the commission.
I said that in any legislation such as this there would be some imperfections. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). This is not necessarily the legislation that I would have brought forward. But in body and in sum, this is legislation the credit of which is worth more than its debits.
If I were to pick out two areas of the measure about which I remain unhappy, one would be in respect of legal aid which will not now be available. The FEC will be made into something like a case work organisation, offering advice to those who seek it about whether their proposals are trivial or worth putting forward. Let us imagine that the FEC says to a Protestant or a Catholic, "You have a good case. You should be taking it forward." I dare say that many of the poor in Northern Ireland will say, "But I do not have the financial means to take it forward." That is bound to create bitterness and dissatisfaction. For want of a ha'porth of tar—because it would not cost much—the Government have taken a decision which will, I fear, undermine the effectiveness of the Bill.
Secondly, the Minister will realise that there is still some confusion over the case of the ecumenical and religious organisations and charitable organisations in respect of the way in which the Bill will apply to them. I understand that legal advice has been taken by organisations that, naturally, would wish to employ people who were religiously sympathetic to the views of the charity or ecumenical organisation. It would be helpful if the Minister would announce that he will be issuing guidelines

to clarify their position, for I feel sure that it is not the intention of the Government to include those sort of organisations within the precise legal ambit of the Bill.
Of course the Bill will not be perfect. No Bill dealing with the difficult matter of intervening, on the one hand, in the free market, and, on the other, in the freedom of the individual will always be able to strike a perfect solution, but that is not the question before us. The question is whether, in sum, the Bill well help to alleviate some of the problems of discrimination that have occurred on both sides. I accept the point of the hon. Member for Belfast, East. Although I believe that, if we were to ask him where the weight of discrimination has lain, if he were to speak to himself honestly, he would know the answer, as I would.
I believe that in sum the Bill is a decent measure which should be given a fair wind. It has been improved, because of the work done both in and outside of politics in the Committee stage. I am glad and proud that I voted for it on Second Reading, and, with all its imperfections—there are not many but there are some—I shall vote in favour of it for the same reason tonight.

Mr. McGrady: This is a unique occasion for the community of Northern Ireland, because it is the third, and I hope last, requirement of what was the civil rights campaign some 20-odd years ago. The three prongs of that campaign were: one man, one vote; a house on need; and a job on merit. The Bill before us is not the Bill it was when it started out. On Second Reading, I was extremely critical of it, and I laid down the benchmarks by which my party would measure the success or failure of the Government to provide a meaningful piece of legislation whose intent was the eradication of discrimination in Northern Ireland.
In listening to some hon. Members, I was reminded of an old saying from my part of the country—that one cannot hide behind a bush and shake it at the same time. We have heard hon. Members say that discrimination does not exist, and then the same hon. Members have given examples of where discrimination does exist. I want to put clearly on record—as I did in Committee—that I and my party are completely opposed to discrimination from whatever source and upon whomever it is visited. It is unjust, it is wrong and it cannot be countenanced, no matter where it may originate or who suffers it.
As a Member new to a Committee considering such a Bill, I found it an eye opener. The Bill was complex and contained many phrases which were emotive and required great interpretation. I must endorse what other hon. Members have said—that the Minister and, presumably, his Department had an open ear to the arguments and debates in Committee. The Minister did not always respond in the way in which one would have wished, but there was a strong indication—we now have the proof—that the Minister often took on board the arguments and the suggestions in Committee. I record my party's appreciation of the Minister's attitude to the Bill.
One of our great worries at the start was that we would have a repetition of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, which was a pious hope that by persuasion and gentle coaxing the dramatic sectarian affliction of Northern Ireland, in terms of jobs, could be eradicated. I believe that, with the changes in the Bill on


affirmative action, goals and timetables, substantial progress has been made to make it an effective weapon against that injustice.
As the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has shown, the Bill has a certain weakness. The Minister gave me an assurance in Committee that he would table an amendment that would enable individuals to have more meaningful assistance from the Fair Employment Commission. That hope has not been fulfilled, because the individual has only been promised advice.
I hope that the Fair Employment Commission in the other paragraphs of that section will be liberal in its interpretation, so that the case of an individual may be considered as a "policy matter", or of a "substantive nature", which would enable the commission to take that case—not at the individual's expense—to the tribunal. We are grateful that the Fair Employment Commission will be consulted before the code of practice is published and that the compensatory sums are more substantial than they originally were.
There are, however, a number of disappointments about the Bill. We have already spoken about section 42 orders and national security, which I believe are causing sectarian injustice in terms of jobs. I shall not pursue that argument, however, because we have already discussed it.
We fail to convince the Minister that, under clause 27, firms with fewer than 250 employees should be subject to annual monitoring. The economy of Northern Ireland is largely based on the small employer and the vast majority of its work force are employed in places with fewer than 250 employees. Those firms will escape such monitoring.
I am also disappointed about the 16-hour rule on short-term or casual employment. Because of the numerous economic problems of Northern Ireland, many people take on part-time employment, but they will not be covered by the Bill. Unfortunately, those people are generally the least well-off and the lowest-paid in our society. With the endemic unemployment of Northern Ireland, employment prospects are limited, so such part-time jobs are greatly sought after. I asked the Minister to consider reducing the 16-hour rule to 12 hours if experience proved that the present rule was defective. The Minister either did not hear my question or chose not to respond, but I hope that he will refer to it later on.
The other grave area of concern relates to contract compliance. I do not mean contract compliance in the sense referred to by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but the withholding of Government grants and aids from firms which are found guilty of operating discriminatory practices. The clause of the Bill relating to this is purely permissive; it says that the Government "may" withhold grants from the offending employer or firm.
I find it almost inconceivable—I hope that the Minister shares my disbelief—that the Government would pay grants or monetary benefits to firms found guilty of discrimination. Although the Minister rejected my attempt to make the permissiveness mandatory, in the circumstances I hope that public funds will not be used to perpetuate discriminatory employment practices. Allied to the general contract compliance provisions, such funding is a matter of great concern to me.
The Bill can he applied across the board. Hon. Members representing the Democratic Unionist party have suggested that its application will be one-sided. I cannot see how or why it should be one-sided, because the

legislation is obviously available to everyone who wishes to take it up. I certainly support the concept that, whether it be Catholic or Protestant discrimination, it is equally reprehensible and should be equally amenable to the law which we hope will be passed under this Bill. I have never made any secret of that.
I do not want to pick out examples, but one was thrown at me tonight, which it was alleged embarrassed me in Committee, about the Newry and Mourne district council. To set the record straight, the Fair Employment Agency did not find Newry and Mourne guilty of discrimination. It found that it had not discriminated in appointments but it did say there was an imbalance and that therefore it should be more attentive to promoting an outreach programme which would encourage members of the under-represented community to apply for jobs.
This is an area that has been called bandit country, and there is a concept abroad that it is dangerous for Protestants to work there. This is nonsense, but it is the concept that is promoted. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is a lack of response to advertising.
We are at a stage now at which the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. It is up to the Government, when the Bill goes through—we shall certainly be voting for the Bill in its present form, although we have some reservations about weaknesses in it and some caveats to enter about some of its provisions—to make this legislation meaningful in Northern Ireland. That means that they have to devote appropriate resources, in both finance and manpower, to the Fair Employment Tribunal to enable it to do the work more speedily perhaps than, according to criticism, the Fair Employment Agency has done in the past. It is up to the Government also to give a lead from their own departmental employment resources and show the way forward to proper recruitment, employment and promotional prospects. Great strides have been made, but many areas have yet to be properly looked at and adjusted.
When the Minister opened the debate, he mentioned a series of bodies, state and semi-state, which are to be engaged in voluntary monitoring. My ear may not have caught it, but it seems to me that one area which he did not mention—and it causes me great concern that it has not been addressed—is the whole area of local government in Northern Ireland, in both its district council and its area board sense. I hope that the Minister will say whether I am wrong about this and did not pick him up correctly or whether, indeed, none of the health area or education area boards or the 26 district councils has yet tried to engage in voluntary monitoring, as have the 400-odd firms in the private sector, which is very welcome.
I echo the sentiment of other hon. Members that, at the end of the day, the great problem, after solving that of the injustice of discrimination, is to try to provide jobs for everybody in Northern Ireland. I like to think that the Bill will not discourage investment from abroad, but will be an encouragement, showing that there is an earnest endeavour to create a fair and just society in which remedies for injustice can be obtained.
I do not fear that, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) suggested, this will scare off firms across the Atlantic. My experience, little though it be, is that firms across the Atlantic are used to much more severe penalties for discrimination against ethnic minorities than those contained in the proposed legislation. American firms are well used to the necessity to monitor, and even provide quotas for, ethnic groups, and do not see anything wrong


with that, for some peculiar reason. Therefore, there would be no problem with investment from America coming to Northern Ireland. Hopefully, it will be a source of new investment.
The crux of the matter is to provide jobs for as many people as possible in Northern Ireland. I hope that the legislation, rather than preventing them, will enable firms to come to Northern Ireland confident in the knowledge that the discrimination problem, which is so widely known abroad, has been addressed and is in the process of being eliminated. That will give firms the confidence to come forward to set up their new investment and job creation ventures in Northern Ireland.
I compliment the Minister once again on having a mind open to argument and persuasion, and for tabling many amendments which will make the Bill much more meaningful than it was on Second Reading.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is quite evident that the opinion exists in this House that discrimination is limited to discrimination against Roman Catholics. The leader of the Democrats became heated about the sad, dark wave of hatred that he experienced as a child. If that was so, why is the worst housing in Belfast not in the Falls road, but in Sandy row?
A leading Member of the House who was appointed to the Northern Ireland Office and who is now chairman of the Labour Party organisation in the House said to me when he came to Northern Ireland, "I have got my eyes open and here in this citadel of Protestantism, Sandy row, you have the worst and most deplorable houses in the whole of Northern Ireland".
Therefore, it is absolutely wrong to paint a picture showing the Protestants as the ones who have everything and the Roman Catholics who have nothing. I remember being at a press conference in Los Angeles where that view was put to me, and I asked the simple question, "How can you run a successful rents and rates strike if you don't have property?" There was no answer to that.
There was, has been, and may even continue to be discrimination between both sections of the community. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) finished his speech with the point that across the world it was viewed that there was discrimination, but that at long last it was being put right. Across the world the picture is painted that Protestants discriminate against the Roman Catholics, and that is it.
It is interesting that during the past few days the United Nations has produced a document saying that there is more discrimination against minorities in the Irish Republic than in any other country that it had studied. We have only to look at the population in the South. There was a time when the Protestants comprised 10 per cent. of the population, but now they form only 3 per cent. We are told that in a few years there will be such a breeding of Roman Catholics that Protestants will be in a minority in the North. I always remind people that Protestants also breed, so that will not happen.
The legislation going through the House tonight makes an employer not merely an employer but a snooper who looks into the religion, the recreation and the schooling of

those whom he employs. The Big Brother approach advocated in the Bill will not be at all healthy; that is what the opposition to the Bill is all about.
It is regrettable that people with legitimate cases cannot be helped to fight them, although they are entitled to the money that they need to do so. Under the old system, a member of my Church who was discriminated against received the largest settlement that the Fair Employment Agency was able to obtain. And the Government say that Protestants are not discriminated against.
Mr. Bob Cooper has been praised to the heights for the work he has done. I once obtained a document which showed that a certain contractor was obtaining all the work commissioned by a certain Government Department—and he employed only Roman Catholics. I took the document to the Fair Employment Agency and showed it to Mr. Cooper personally. I said, "Bob, I want that investigated." Then I went home.
I had hardly crossed the doorstep when the police arrived. They asked me where I had obtained the document. I said, "That is my business. What did Mr. Cooper do?" The police said that he had called them in immediately. He had said, "This document must have been stolen. I want you to go and put pressure on Ian Paisley." I told the House about it at the time.
I referred the police to Mr. Speaker. I said, "If Mr. Speaker requests me to hand over the document, the police will get it." Needless to say, Mr. Speaker said that what I had received, given my parliamentary standing, I was entitled to use to the best advantage of my constituents; and there it stopped.
What faith could I have in the head of the Fair Employment Agency, who was brought evidence and immediately referred it to the police? And we are told about fair employment. Mr. Cooper is known throughout Northern Ireland as someone in whom Protestants will not put their trust; nor, indeed, will many Roman Catholics. For some time an organisation opposing him was run by Roman Catholics who had no faith in what he was doing.
The Bill will take us back to a time when people in Northern Ireland had no faith in the organisations. The Minister has told us that he will ensure that all cases are investigated. Well, we shall see. I trust that, when the public representatives knock at the door of a firm to find the evidence gone and an investigation is requested, a proper investigation will take place with immediate publication of the results.

Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend not find it strange that when members of investigating bodies are appointed there seems to be a continual leaning towards a particular political party? Is it not odd that the Minister can only find members of the Alliance party to appoint? Is that why the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) seems to have such a tremendous relationship with Mr. Bob Cooper—because he happens to be a member of the Alliance party?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Under the review that we heard so much about today, Dublin will have a say in who will be appointed. Not only that, but the review says that the little power that the local councils have now will have to be clipped as well so the majority section of the community will have very little representation. We will see who is appointed.
It is interesting that we have had a lot of talk about the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Why is it that there is no nomination for that commission of an Official Unionist—the majority party in Northern Ireland? Why is that there is no nomination from the Democratic Unionist party? Why is it that there are no members of the Alliance party?
The Minister has to face up to those issues. Public bodies should cover the spread of the community. Of course there will be various views put by the Unionists on that point, but perhaps that will be helpful.
I do not agree with all that is said by SACHR, but it says a lot of good things and it does not always side with the Government. Let us have fair appointments. If we do, some confidence can be instilled into the Community. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will take courage from the fact that the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench are saying, "This is for you." The Protestant employees must study it, and use it well and wisely. Perhaps then we will see whether there is fairness from the Government and those who have said that they want fairness for both communities.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) picked up some remarks made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and accused him of being willing to pick out cases to illustrate his point; he described them as trying to caricature the real position. I had always thought that one of the outstanding characteristics of a caricature was that one recognised the individual portrayed. Had the hon. Gentleman thought of that point, he would not have been so anxious to use that analogy, because the caricature that is created in the minds of people about cases that are picked out reveals the reality of the situation.
When I first came to this House, a very old long-standing Member said, "Whenever the two Front Benches are in agreement"—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has made it perfectly plain that there is an enormous amount of bipartisanship between the two Front Benches—"watch out; it is bound to be wrong." It was true then, and it is true today, and it was never more true than it is over this Bill.
The Government do not like to hear this. One of the things that has made me particularly sad today is the fact that the Minister thinks he has done a good job. God help him, and God help Ulster, which has to put up with the consequences of the legislation which the House will undoubtedly pass into effect this evening.
Moving the Third Reading, the Minister described the Bill as fair, objective and balanced. It was so balanced that, from the moment the Bill appeared, there has been no concession whatsoever to the Unionist point of view. It has been ignored. In fact, I was interested in the treatment given to the questions that have been put time after time today. We saw a galactic black hole in operation on the Government Front Bench. Things went into it, but nothing came out, or at least nothing that was of any use in explaining the effects of the Bill.
It has been an interesting but sad day. If the Minister stays in the Northern Ireland Office, he will live to regret the day that he, with the help of the Opposition, piloted this legislation through the House. It has come to the

House for its final stages just before we rise for a recess and, unfortunately, few hon. Members have taken an interest. I wish more had done so. If they had, perhaps some—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 20.

Division No. 219]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Howells, Geraint


Amos, Alan
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Arbuthnot, James
Irvine, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Jack, Michael


Ashby, David
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Atkinson, David
Knapman, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lawrence, Ivan


Beith, A. J.
Lightbown, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bright, Graham
Lord, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Burns, Simon
Maclean, David


Butterfill, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maude, Hon Francis


Carrington, Matthew
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Chapman, Sydney
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


Cran, James
Stevens, Lewis


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Devlin, Tim
Summerson, Hugo


Dorrell, Stephen
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Dover, Den
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Durant, Tony
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Dykes, Hugh
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Favell, Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Forman, Nigel
Viggers, Peter


Forth, Eric
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Freeman, Roger
Walden, George


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Waller, Gary


Gow, Ian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Wells, Bowen


Gregory, Conal
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hague, William
Wood, Timothy


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)



Harris, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hayward, Robert
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)



NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Beggs, Roy
Mowlam, Marjorie


Bermingham, Gerald
Pike, Peter L.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dixon, Don
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Haynes, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Ingram, Adam
Wareing, Robert N.


Janner, Greville



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Noes:


McNamara, Kevin
Rev. Ian Paisley and


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rev. William McCrea.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Ross: When I was interrupted, I did not imagine that I would have such a long rest to think more carefully about my remarks. I was pointing out that, during the Bill's passage, no concession whatsoever was made to the Unionist point of view. During one period—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members must either enter the Chamber or leave quietly.

Mr. Ross: Sadly, some right hon. and hon. Members have voted on a subject about which they know little, and they show even less desire to learn because they are never present in the Chamber to listen. If they were, they might know more about the issues on which they vote. However, that would lead them to oppose the Government, which would not be liked very much either. It is in the interests of the Government Whips, as well as my own, that they leave the Chamber as soon as possible.
In Committee, the question was raised of persons employed by charitable bodies and by churches. It was pointed out that they should fall outside the terms of the Bill because such posts require a certain commitment from the people who fill them. The example given concerned a religious commitment. The Minister's reply on that occasion showed that he did not have a clue as to what is meant by a religious commitment in Northern Ireland terms, thus confirming—as he has done time and again during the passage of the Bill—that he did not have a clue about the situation in Northern Ireland and that it is beyond his comprehension.
I find the Bill offensive. I remarked earlier that it is offensive to work people, who dislike being asked about their religious affiliations. It is insulting also to the ability, integrity and intelligence of employers, because it implies that they recruit people on the basis of the religion to which they belong. It may be that an employer can draw many high-quality workers for a large establishment from one religious community. The probability is that he could not do that, and therefore the legislation is accusing employers of employing people of lesser competence. If that is the case, they will not be in business for very long. Every business man and every employer is looking for the best quality employees that he can find, but he will not be allowed to do that under the Bill.
The Bill will turn employers into pernicious snooping policemen. It will find out whether an employer believes that he is providing equal employment, and it will then demand that he takes affirmative action, which is reverse discrimination. An employer will even be asked to anticipate the possibility that one section of the community might be under-represented and take action before that occurs. If an employer is found guilty of having an imbalanced work force, he will be given six months to correct that imbalance.
Jobs are scarce in Northern Ireland; if someone has a nice, safe, secure job, he will not leave in six months. Therefore, the possibility of a company having a meaningful turnover in six months is nonsense.
I turn to the question of merit which was so clearly enunciated at the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister; she said that people should be employed on merit alone. I found it interesting that, when the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) spoke about merit, he qualified it. He said that people should be employed on merit and according to need, and that people should be employed

because they needed a job. In my experience, anyone who does not have a job is looking for one, so by implication they need a job. If anyone can suggest a cohesive and sensible way of combining merit, the need for a job and a fair spread of religious denomination within the catchment area—whatever that may be—I will be pleased to listen, but I have not heard it yet and I do not expect to hear it from the Minister this evening.
How should one determine discrimination or imbalance in a work force? We have never been told the criteria. No effort has been made to tell us what should be taken into account. The basic problem is that one has to determine a geographical area around a factory. I have read many reports of investigations carried out by the Fair Employment Agency. I found shifting sands of criteria. One has only to read the reports of Londonderry to see the verbal contortions used by Mr. Cooper, who has featured so prominently in this Third Reading debate, and other writers of those reports to avoid the truth. I believe that Protestants suffer fairly grievously from discrimination in many firms in that area and no efforts have been made to expose those firms to anything like the extent that efforts were made when firms that are owned and run by Unionists are under investigation.
We shall also find that the Government will try to avoid giving the advice that I asked to be given to incoming employers so that they can be made aware of the dangers they will face if they transgress criteria that have not yet been explained to any hon. Member or anybody in Northern Ireland. Those criteria will not be explained clearly and factually to any incoming investor or employer. We have not been told what the time scale will be for the reports that have to be prepared on individual firms or all the firms, or on the cases that may be brought to the attention of the investigating body in Northern Ireland.
I could go on, but we have wasted the time of the House in useless argument and in useless proposals—useless not because they lack merit, but because the Government are determined not to listen to anything that Unionist Members say to them about Northern Ireland. If one looks at Northern Ireland today, after 10 years of this Government and nearly 20 years after the House assumed responsibility for the governance of that Province, one can only conclude that those who have been running Ulster have made a mighty poor job of it in those 20 years.
One of the reasons for that poor job—indeed, the principal reason for the present unhappy condition of the Province which I have the honour to represent—is the fact that we who represent the majority community and who won another election only last week, thereby showing the support we enjoy in the community, have had our voice and our advice ignored not only by this Government, but by successive Governments. While that continues and while this Government listen to, accept and implement the advice given by enemies of the Union, the condition of Ulster will not improve. Those who sit on the Government Front Bench and those who sit in No. 10 Downing street bear the ultimate responsibility for the condition of the Province and for the murders, deaths and violence there. They alone are the people who will answer one day at the bar of history. I am a professing Christian and a committed Christian, which the Minister does not understand. I believe that one day they will all answer before the throne of the returning judge on judgment day.

Mr. Harry Barnes: You are no doubt, sceptical of such statements, Mr. Speaker, but I will try to be brief. I welcome the improvements and strengthening in the Bill and the suggestions that there will be further improvements of it in another place. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) earlier criticised Labour Members for adopting a different position on Third Reading from the position they adopted on Second Reading. He might reflect on the fact that it is because we adopted a different position on Second Reading that it was possible, in a desire to obtain a more bilateral response, to achieve an improved Bill.
The argument of the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that Protestants are discriminated against in many areas in Northern Ireland is correct. I made that point myself when we were discussing the White Paper that led to the Bill. It seems to be an argument for saying that this Bill is the type of legislation that is required. It can be of benefit to the Protestant population as well as to the Catholic population in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentlemen should have applied their minds in Committee to the way in which the Bill will operate so that they could strengthen its provisions to protect the interests of the Protestant community in the areas they represent.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I have reservations about the Bill. It would work at its best if it was working in a fair weather economic situation in Northern Ireland, where there were plenty of jobs already. If we were talking about youngsters coming on to the job market and about who would get the chance of what job, or if we were talking about people changing jobs or promotion or about people moving, it would be much easier to operate such provisions. Even in the current circumstances, if we had a vastly improving economic system, with new jobs emerging all over the place, such legislation could operate to balance out discrimination and to introduce a fairer work mix in Northern Ireland. However, there is economic conflict in Northern Ireland and it must be added to the terrorist conflict and the sectarian politics of the Province and it cannot help. Conflicts between capital and labour, and capital and capital in search of markets, cannot assist in circumstances of high employment.
The fact that some hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have spoken in favour of an enterprise culture seems to run up against the type of provisions in the Bill and the other economic and social circumstances that should be seen as the context of such legislation. The privatisations of Harland and Wolff, of Short Brothers and of the electricity industry and the destabilisation of the health and social services are vast problems that affect the legislation working as fully as it should.
Northern Ireland is in great need of an extension of democratic provisions, of devolved power and of a Bill of Rights to protect everyone in the different minority positions in the different sections of the Province. If we were to have a Full Employment Bill and a Democracy Bill for Northern Ireland, we might have all the different elements that would enable us to begin to work together to improve the position. We now have one part, or at least a nudge towards one part, of those three elements and

perhaps it will be of some assistance; but a Full Employment Bill and a Democracy Bill would be of far more importance.

Mr. Viggers: With the leave of the House, I shall seek to respond to some of the points that have been made in the debate.
The House is nearing the end of a long road on this fair employment legislation. It started when my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), then the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, ascertained in July 1985 that the 1976 legislation had not been as successful as was hoped in rectifying the imbalance in employment in Northern Ireland. In September 1986 we published a consultative document which was followed by the guide to effective practice, then the White Paper, then the Bill. There has been wide consultation and I know from my discussions with individuals that we have the good will of many employers in Northern Ireland and of employer and, I trust, employee representatives as well.
For the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to say that the Bill is a product of Dublin rule in Northern Ireland is ludicrous and does not square with the facts. Yes, I have been to Dublin and have discussed the legislation with those in Dublin, but we have had many other discussions as well—

Mr. Peter Robinson: Why?

Mr. Viggers: It has been helpful to have those contributions and saying that the Bill is the product of Dublin rule does not square with the facts.
I welcome much more the contribution, in so far as he made this point, of the hon. Member for Antrim. North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who said that the legislation exists and urged people to use it. I echo that. The legislation is there to be used and I urge all people to use it. Indeed, I urge the hon. Gentleman and others to promote participation in this legislation, in industrial matters and in matters relating to Government generally.
I assure the House that the legislation is even-handed, but we must face the fact that, despite the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, male Catholics are still two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than Protestants. That is unacceptable and to that extent there is an imbalance, which we are seeking to rectify. The legislation is even-handed.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Get them jobs.

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman says, "Get them jobs", but that is exactly what we are seeking to do, and with a level of success. I say with great pride that since I have held my current post unemployment in Northern Ireland has fallen from 134,988 to 107,625. I know those figures well and am proud of them. We are working hard to improve employment, and I urge all hon. Members to do all they can to improve the position.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) referred to the 16-hour limit for part-time employees and asked for an assurance that if it appeared that the limit was causing injustice we would rectify that quickly. If an employee works for less than 16 hours per week he will not be covered by the Bill. In Committee I gave an assurance that we would take powers to vary the 16-hour limit, so I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about participation by public bodies and local authorities in the monitoring procedures. Progress is being made in encouraging monitoring and setting up procedures. We hope that more work will take place on that when the legislation becomes law.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked specifically about Church bodies and their concern that they might be debarred from selecting people who shared the faith which they seek to promote. I made a long speech on the subject in Committee. We have included an exemption from the anti-discrimination provisions for those jobs whose "essential nature"—those being the
important words—requires them to be done by persons holding or not holding a particular religious belief. The test is deliberately tightly drawn because we are anxious that there should be no wider loophole for exemption. We think that the provision is fair. It is parallel with the provision in the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) alleged that the legislation will not be fair in that it breaches the merit principle and will mean that the best man or woman will not be appointed to the job. I assure him that our guiding principle in the legislation is that the best man or woman should be appointed.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil made a moving speech based on his personal experience of growing up in Northern Ireland. He said that from his experience and knowledge the legislation was right. He said that he supported it on Second Reading and that he would support the Third Reading. The right hon. Gentleman approached the legislation from his personal experience of Northern Ireland.
I approach the whole subject from a different viewpoint—that of one who is reluctant to add any new burden to industry and who believes that the principles on which the Conservative Government have been operating are right and that we should be slow to impose any extra burden on industry. I recognise that the legislation will impose extra burdens, although I believe them to be light. I believe that they will be acceptable to good employers. All we are asking them to do is to engage in good personnel practice.
Approaching the legislation from a different viewpoint from that of the right hon. Gentleman, I am convinced that it is appropriate and right in the context of Northern Ireland. On that basis I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 4.

Division No. 220]
[10.33 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Ashby, David


Amos, Alan
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Arbuthnot, James
Atkinson, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)





Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ingram, Adam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Irvine, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Jack, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Kirkwood, Archy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Knapman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Lawrence, Ivan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lightbown, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Burns, Simon
Lord, Michael


Butterfill, John
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McGrady, Eddie


Carrington, Matthew
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chapman, Sydney
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
McNamara, Kevin


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Maude, Hon Francis


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Devlin, Tim
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Dorrell, Stephen
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dover, Den
Sackville, Hon Tom


Durant, Tony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Dykes, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Fallon, Michael
Stern, Michael


Favell, Tony
Stevens, Lewis


Fishburn, John Dudley
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Forman, Nigel
Summerson, Hugo


Forth, Eric
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Freeman, Roger
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Gow, Ian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Viggers, Peter


Gregory, Conal
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Walden, George


Hague, William
Waller, Gary


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Harris, David
Wells, Bowen


Haynes, Frank
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hayward, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Wood, Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)



Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. David Maclean and


Hume, John
Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


McCrea, Rev William



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Roy Beggs and


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Mr. Peter Robinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

MAGISTRATES' COURTS

That the draft Magistrates' Courts (Remands in Custody) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Question agreed to.

National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Mr. Adam Ingram: I wish to make it clear at the outset that this Adjournment debate is decidedly not the best way to discuss the issue of the future of the national engineering laboratory, which is in my constituency and which is recognised throughout the world as a major national asset to this country.
I am grateful for the time that I have been allocated, but the issue should have been handled in an entirely different way, with the Minister coming to the House to explain his original decision. It was absolutely outrageous that the decision to privatise the laboratory was announced by way of a written answer to a question planted by the Minister with the aid of a compliant Tory Back-Bench Member who probably knew neither where the NEL was situated nor anything about the work done there. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) is not present in the Chamber to participate in or even to hear the debate.
The Department of Trade and Industry did not even pay me the courtesy of formally notifying me that the decision was to be announced or that it would result in the loss of nearly 200 jobs—a third of the work force. The way in which it was done exhibits a nervousness on the part of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the responsible Minister. It was a clear attempt to avoid accountability on the issue.
The lack of real interest in the work and worth of the laboratory is shown by the fact that the Secretary of State has visited the site only once, and that was a year ago, six weeks before he announced his initial abortive bid to off load the laboratory to the private sector. His visit lasted less than one hour. The Minister's own indifference to the work done at the laboratory is shown by the fact that he has likewise visited the laboratory only once, and that was after last week's announcement. It is almost as if his decision to visit was an afterthought and a trouble to him.
In a letter the day after the announcement, the Minister told me:
I have arranged to visit the National Engineering Laboratory … as I felt it was important to give everyone there the opportunity to hear the Government's view and for me to hear their reactions to our announcement.
The truth is that the Minister spoke to no more than a handful of senior civil servants at the laboratory and, like the Secretary of State, he stayed for less than an hour. So much for his express wish to give everyone the opportunity to hear the Government's view and, I would have thought more importantly, for him to hear the reactions of the work force to the announcement. He gave me that assurance in his letter, but he did not stand by it.
Those actions showed sheer, utter contempt for the work force, many of whom have worked there for 10, 20 or 30 years, and who have given so much to make the NEL a world leader in its field of engineering and industrial research.
The Prime Minister is rightly described as an ambulance chaser for the way in which she exploits for publicity purposes every disaster in this country. The work force at the NEL has a not dissimilar view of the Secretary

of State and the Under-Secretary of State at the DTI. The NEL staff view them as being the undertakers. I noted that even the Secretary of State for Scotland issued a statement welcoming the decision to privatise the laboratory. As if he really cared about the matter! He has not even visited the laboratory since taking office. The work force at the NEL is expecting him, however, to turn up at the burial.
It is important to put the announcement to privatise NEL in its recent historical context. In February last year the permanent secretary at the DTI notified the trade unions that all four of the industrial research establishments were to be reviewed and that the report was to be completed within a month. The review of the NEL by the DTI's central policy unit appeared to comprise a half-a-day visit by two people.
Last May the Secretary of State dropped in by helicopter. He stayed for just under an hour and told the press that he had been impressed by what he saw. Later in the month, he announced that he intended to privatise the laboratory and that the other three industrial establishments were to be given agency status. Only the NEL was targeted for privatisation.
In August, after much encouragement had been given to the private sector to take over NEL, the foreign-owned YARD company was given the green light to investigate the laboratory and to submit a bid. In October, despite promises of massive state aid, YARD pulled out of the bid.
Undaunted, the Secretary of State pushed ahead with a dogmatic determination to privatise the establishment. He appointed the firm of Touche Ross—at a cost calculated to be in excess of £100,000—to carry out an evaluation of the laboratory and to report to him in April of this year.
The year since the first announcement last May has been a period of great uncertainty at the NEL. More than 40 key members of staff have left, 10 of them among the best and the brightest of the scientists employed at the establishment. The blight that has been placed on the NEL, first as a result of the original announcement and now as a result of the decision to push ahead with the privatisation, is suicidal. It is and will prove to be highly damaging to the morale of the work force at the N EL and to work which is done there at the forefront of industrial research and development. It is and will continue to prove damaging to the needs of many hundreds of small companies in Scotland and in Britain which rely upon the laboratory's services. Because of those factors, the Government's announcement has been almost universally condemned in Scotland.
I am sure that the Minister would agree that the key to the success of his decision would be the co-operation of the staff and, in particular, the scientific personnel who determine the quality of the research work undertaken at NEL. That support, however, is not forthcoming.
I want the Minister to respond tonight to the decision taken yesterday at a mass meeting of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants at the laboratory. A resolution passed at that meeting decided:
That the IPCS should resist strongly any attempt to legislate for the compulsory transfer of staff from NEL to the proposed NTC"—
the national technology centre—
and that IPCS should alert and ally support from other Civil Service unions to resist the legislation.
In the timetable given for the implementation of the decision no reference is made to the required legislation


relating to it. Can the Minister say when the necessary legislation to effect the decision will be introduced and what form it will take?
At the IPCS meeting another resolution was passed that stated:
The management have acted deviously in initiating immediate staff selection for the NTC without consultation with the staff side after giving the impression at a previous meeting that a timetable of October 1989 and a plan for redundancy in 1990 would be adhered to. The joint NEL unions should seek the immediate postponement of this selection procedure until full consultations have taken place.
I urge the Minister to respond positively to that request and to postpone the compulsory transfer of staff until those full discussions and consultations have taken place with the staff unions.
Another key to the success of the proposed NTC is the attitude of those customers who currently use NEL facilities and who would be expected to continue to be the customer base for the new organisation. Touche Ross, in its discussions with the laboratory's current customers, found that considerable resistance was shown to the idea of ownership by an industrial organisation. That is, of course, likely to be the eventual outcome of privatisation.
The Touche report stated:
Much of the work currently carried out is dependent in whole or part on the Laboratory being seen to be independent. A number of potential buyers might also be seen as competitors to other potential customers. There is a view in some quarters that it would be inappropriate for National Standards to be in the hands of a commercial organisation that might be interested in acquiring knowledge of any equipment being calibrated against primary standards.
Therefore, although the consultants appointed by the DTI expressed industry's objections to privatisation, the Government have ignored that view and advice and pressed on regardless.
The report prepared by Touche Ross also stated:
We would agree with the view of the NEL management that a DTI Laboratory with, say, £9 million of DTI underpinning funding and the ability to trade and compete freely would be preferable to the private sector laboratory from the point of view of its management and staff. However, nothing we have been told by DTI staff leads us to feel that there is any significant chance of such funding or freedoms being made available. We have therefore not made detailed financial projections for such an option.
Therefore, industry that uses the NEL is against its privatisation, but the independent analysis by Touche Ross on the need for a properly funded establishment, unfettered by commercial considerations, has been ignored by the Government. It is little wonder that it is considered that the decision on the NEL has been rigged to satisfy the Secretary of State's obsession with privatisation. There certainly is no evidence to show what has been decided will improve the range and quality of the scientific research carried out by the establishment.
The NEL has served this country well for more than 41 years of its existence because the staff employed there have been able to undertake when necessary innovative and thorough research work, driven by the desire to know rather than by the profit motive.
Under the disciplines of the "near market" philosophy favoured by the Government, that expertise and innovative pride could well be lost to the country.
Over recent years the laboratory has provided a vital back-up research facility for many small businesses within the industrial sector. Many of those businesses simply

could not afford to pay the commercial rates for the work done. It is likely that that essential support given to the small business sector will cease, again to the detriment of the industrial economy within this country.
The decision to restructure and privatise NEL does not have the support of public opinion in Scotland. I need only quote from Scottish newspapers at the time of the initial announcement. The Scotsman said:
In this instance, the dogma of privatisation has taken priority over everything else.
The Glasgow Herald said:
We have learned better than to expect the Government to pay much attention to Scottish sentiment in such matters.
The Evening Times said:
Events prove he"—
that is, the Secretary of State—
lied to the people of Scotland and the 650 NEL staff.
Public opinion within Scotland is not convinced that the announcement is any different from that original announcement.
The decision to restructure and privatise NEL does not have the support of industry and it most decidedly does not have the support of the people who work at NEL, 200 of whom will lose their jobs, while those who remain will lose pension rights and conditions of service.
In the run-up to 1992 the Government should be trying to invest in industrial research, not divesting itself of a key asset critical to industry's future. I ask the Government to think again about the proposals and to give serious consideration to retaining NEL within the public sector and providing it with sufficient funding and freedom of action to allow it to serve the industrial and engineering research needs of British industry.
I am most grateful for the support tonight of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who I understand wishes to make a few comments on this issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman has the consent of both the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and the Minister.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I rise on behalf of the Opposition, perhaps a bit unusually, but this is a key issue both for our strategy towards the engineering industry and fox Scotland in particular, to give our full support to the case which my hon. Friend has put. This is a quite extraordinary example of damage to, and ignorance of, the dynamics of the engineering industry. The idea that the engineering industry could take over a major research facility, entirely changing the research strategy of a major part of its activities in a short time, and come up with an efficient solution is quite absurd, and so it has proved very quickly.
We ask simply that the damage should be minimised by affording the maximum transitional period, realistic funding and a clear mission for what is still a major national resource which has a great part to play in the future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I start by congratulating the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. The House will recognise the very understandable concern that


he has expressed so eloquently on behalf of his constituents and others at the very major changes which are in the process of happening to the national engineering laboratory.
I acknowledge the sense of the comments made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) as well.
I do not hesitate in acknowledging the great uncertainty that has obtained for quite a long time among the staff of this most important resource. That is something that is always to be regretted because uncertainty tends to breed unhappiness and difficulty.
I accept some of the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman has made about the method and timing of the announcements made recently. I state here and now that at the very least they could have been more felicitously organised. I offer the hon. Gentleman an apology for that, which was due to the speed at which the announcement had to be made. In retrospect, we could have announced it in a different and better fashion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my apology for that.
Before I give a more extensive background to the Government's position, I shall seek to answer directly two of the important questions posed by the hon. Gentleman. First, it is, at the very least, unlikely that any legislation would receive Royal Assent before this time in 1990 at the earliest. I would not be giving away too many secrets if I said that it was unlikely to meet even that time scale.
As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, the time scale for the necessary retructuring and investment in the site given in the Touche Ross report spans a period of many years. We have made no secret of the fact that it is unlikely that the process described in the Touche Ross report, which we have substantially underwritten and agreed to, can take place in less than a period of some years. Therefore, we are not talking about something which is to be done hastily. It will, of necessity, take some time.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have been told that assurances have already been given to the staff on the site at East Kilbride that there will certainly be no redundancies during this calendar year. They have been told that there will be no staff reductions before consultations with them have taken place in accordance with the procedures agreed with the trade unions involved. We do not intend to take any peremptory or hasty actions. I expect that the fullest possible consultations on the agreed and understood basis will be undertaken in order that any adjustments may be made in the proper way.

Mr. Ingram: I accept those assurances, but will the Minister say whether there are likely to be redundancies, and if there are, how are they to be effected?

Mr. Forth: We have made it clear throughout that we hope that any changes in staffing levels will be made, as far as is humanly possible, through either early retirement or voluntary redundancies. That would be our hope and aim. At this stage it is too early to judge whether further redundancies will have to be made.
When I made my brief—and I acknowledge that it was brief—visit to the site last week, the limited number of people with whom I was able to speak gave a mixed response to the announcement which had only recently been made. In some laboratory departments, and among some of the management, there is a degree of enthusiasm for what has been suggested.
It is too early fully to judge the likely impact. Until further information is available, further consultations have taken place and the way in which the suggested changes will affect the staffing levels is known, I remain optimistic. I hope that the impact will be more easily managed and will involve the minimum unhappiness—I hope that there will be no unhappiness—among those involved. However, that remains to be seen, and I hope that everyone will enter into consultations in as positive a spirit as possible, even though they will appreciate the background which the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
We must acknowledge that the laboratory, whoever owns it, is, and will remain, a major national resource. It has facilities which are unique in this country and, in some respects, in the world, for large-scale mechanical testing of structures and components, earthquake simulation and, as I saw, the world's most comprehensive facilities for measuring the flows and pressures of oil, air and water, and mixtures of them.
The reason why our objective is the privatisation of the laboratory has been made clear. However, I shall put it on record again because it has been challenged again in the debate.

Mr. Ingram: The Minister has said that the laboratory would remain a national resource. Will he give an assurance that it will remain a British-owned national resource?

Mr. Forth: In all honesty, I feel that it is too early to embark on such assurances, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman well understands—although I think I know why he has asked his question. The process is at an extremely early stage. Touche Ross has made some comprehensive and, in some ways, exciting proposals, which we have largely accepted. Until we know much more clearly where further investment in the site will go and what emphasis it will be given, and what the science park section will mean, I do not think that it would be sensible for me to give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman has asked. I am sure that this is not the last time that we shall hear his point; he has got it on the record and we shall take it into consideration.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the other place on 7 June 1988 that the review of the Department's research establishments had shown that
Roughly three-quarters of the work at NEL currently falls into the category of industrially relevant R and D. The principal beneficiary is industry, not Government, and strong signals from industry are needed in guiding the development and direction of the work. This 'market pull' is more easily provided and understood when the R and D is carried out in an organisation whose progress depends directly on its success in providing services to industry."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 June 1988; Vol. 497, c. 1398.]
That remains the fundamental justification for our policy. The announcement made last week about the more detailed means of carrying it into effect—involving restructuring, a more commercial approach and, indeed, further investment—is now clearer to all concerned with the publication of the various forms of the Touche Ross report. My right hon. and noble Friend has made it clear that the considerable skills that will remain at the laboratory are best provided in a framework that gives opportunities for commercial drive and commercial expansion where possible. That, we believe, will best he achieved through the routes announced in the last week.
The laboratory must be developed so that its work is increasingly orientated towards meeting its market demands. Its skills and facilities are second to none, and we want to give them the opportunity of succeeding in the market place. I emphasise, however, that the Government are, and will remain, an important customer, on the basis that the laboratory will pay for the work that the NEL can do to support necessary Government objectives—for example, underpinning statutory, regulatory and policy work.
I would be very sorry if the House failed to see last week's announcement of our aim to establish a national technology centre as a very positive factor in the future of the laboratory and of the site as a whole, thus benefiting East Kilbride, Scotland and the national economy. The announcement was made after the most careful study of all the options, and careful consideration of the strengths and, indeed, weaknesses of the arrangements at the laboratory. We are not rushing into hasty decisions.
The original announcement was made some time ago. It has been refined and developed; it has been looked at by Touche Ross experts who made comprehensive proposals based on the facts and figures. I do not believe that there is any reason for pessimism or doubt about the future, provided that all concerned view positively the proposals made by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Government and through the Touche Ross reports.

Mr. Ingram: Does the Minister accept the uncertainty identified by Touche Ross? There is a possibility that, if the NTC is transferred to the private sector, the competiting private companies and industries will not view it as an independent consultancy giving free advice—that it will be run for profit and not for the quality of the research that it funded.

Mr. Forth: Again, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I am sure that that will not happen. I believe that we can develop an approach that will combine the fact of private ownership, in whatever form it may emerge—it is too early to form a complete judgment about that—with retaining the status and reputation of the facility as a respository of national standards. I see no contradiction in that sense and I believe that the two can be managed together. That will be one of our principal objectives. We will have that in mind as we develop the policies in detail. We shall also provide funds for the restructuring and refurbishment of buildings and facilities as appropriate. Although the plans are at an early stage they are being developed rapidly. The Touche Ross report said that refurbishment totalling £3 million over three years would be required. We shall be ready to provide the necessary funds to help management to achieve the required improvements. In addition, the site will be developed as an attractive location for incoming industry. The restructuring programme will be directed towards matching the work of the laboratory with real customer requirements, whether the customers are in the private sector or the Government. I believe that the laboratory has a lot to offer.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride rightly emphasised the likely reduction in employment. It should be noted that an alternative approach consistent with Government

policy on the research establishment might have been to reduce the size of the laboratory to that needed to meet the work necessary to meet the Government's needs and to keep that reduced size laboratory within the Civil Service. However, as was revealed by the Touche Ross report, doing that would have involved reducing staff numbers to 226 as opposed to the present proposal which involves keeping some 400 jobs. The Government have therefore opted for an approach which will seek to maximise the opportunities for the laboratory, the site and the staff. I have already said that reductions in staff will not be carried out hastily. The intention is that they will largely take the form of transfers within Department of Trade and Industry transfers to other Government Departments and retirements, including some early retirements. Furthermore, some staff may set up small companies operating within the science and technology park. This part of the restructuring exercise will take place during 1990. As I have said, at the same time work on developing the site as a science and technology park and in preparing staff to meet market challenges will proceed as quickly as possible if, as we hope, the park is a success there should in due course be more jobs on site than there are at present. I am sure that that will be an increasing possibility as we develop our plans.
As regards staff who will not be working in the national technology centre, my Departments will do everything possible to assist and advise them in dealing with the changes in their careers and circumstance. The legal position is that the transfer of civil servants to the new company—the National Technology Centre Ltd—would be covered by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. They provide that transferred staff would enjoy terms and conditions having the same effect as those which staff currently enjoy, apart from occupational pension schemes. Any legislation in connection with the transfer could facilitate the transfer, including making provision to enable responsibility for redundancy compensation to be taken over by the new company.
We expect to find ways for NEL staff to be able to share in the financial rewards which will arise if the restructuring leads to successful privatisation.
In the short time available, I have tried to answer as many of the hon. Gentleman's questions as possible. I hope that I have gone some way to reassuring him and, through him, all those involved at NEL, that, in spite of the considerable changes that the Government are seeking to bring about on the site, we and the management of NEL are approaching this in the most positive light. Within the framework of the policy—which we are not prepared to change—we believe that there are considerable grounds for optimism, provided that everybody on the site will come together with the Department and management who are keen and enthusiastic, to take the opportunities of the investment available to seek to make the future of the site the best possible. I am confident that that can be the case and I hope that that message can go from the House to everyone involved on the site in the hope that, in spite of the changes involved, something real and positive will come out of this for the future of NEL and the national technology centre.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.